On 01/18/2013 04:51 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> wrote:
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
> This hotplu
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
> >>> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> Hi Amit Daniel,
> >>
> >>> This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it sh
On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Hi Amit Daniel,
>>
>>> This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
>>> C1 in cpu0. If
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>
> Hi Amit Daniel,
>
>> This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
>> C1 in cpu0. If it is done like below than for normal cases(when all
>> cpu's a
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
> This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
> C1 in cpu0. If it is done like below than for normal cases(when all
> cpu's are online) there wont be any statistics for C0 state
I guess you
Hi Daniel,
This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
C1 in cpu0. If it is done like below than for normal cases(when all
cpu's are online) there wont be any statistics for C0 state also which
is required. Other patches look good.
Thanks,
Amit
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:
