On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 14:04 -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-11-05 16:48 GMT-02:00 Imre Deak :
> > While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
> > the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fixed one WARN
> > that we can hit with some of the pm_rpm subtests.
2014-11-05 16:48 GMT-02:00 Imre Deak :
> While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
> the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fixed one WARN
> that we can hit with some of the pm_rpm subtests. Hopefully these
> changes also makes it clearer how we avoid th
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 02:57:58PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 18:42 -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > 2014-11-05 16:48 GMT-02:00 Imre Deak :
> > > While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
> > > the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fi
On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 18:42 -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-11-05 16:48 GMT-02:00 Imre Deak :
> > While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
> > the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fixed one WARN
> > that we can hit with some of the pm_rpm subtests.
2014-11-05 16:48 GMT-02:00 Imre Deak :
> While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
> the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fixed one WARN
> that we can hit with some of the pm_rpm subtests. Hopefully these
> changes also makes it clearer how we avoid th
While fixing [1] I noticed that we can simplify a couple of things in
the RPS enabling/disabling code. So I did that and also fixed one WARN
that we can hit with some of the pm_rpm subtests. Hopefully these
changes also makes it clearer how we avoid the race during RPS interrupt
disabling and makes
