* [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
@ 2016-01-25 9:46 Gautham R. Shenoy
2016-01-25 9:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 6:32 ` [PATCH RESEND] " Gautham R. Shenoy
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gautham R. Shenoy @ 2016-01-25 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, linux-pm, linux-kernel
Cc: Shilpasri G Bhat, Juri Lelli, Gautham R. Shenoy
Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
primitive instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
{
lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
do {
- policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
-
/* No more policies in the list */
- if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
+ if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
return NULL;
+
+ policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
} while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
return policy;
--
1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 9:46 [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list Gautham R. Shenoy
@ 2016-01-25 9:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-25 11:18 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-27 6:32 ` [PATCH RESEND] " Gautham R. Shenoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2016-01-25 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gautham R. Shenoy
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Shilpasri G Bhat, Juri Lelli
On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> primitive instead.
>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> do {
> - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> -
> /* No more policies in the list */
> - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
> + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
> return NULL;
> +
> + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
>
> return policy;
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 9:50 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-01-25 11:18 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-25 11:22 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 6:09 ` Gautham R Shenoy
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Juri Lelli @ 2016-01-25 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Gautham R. Shenoy, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Shilpasri G Bhat
Hi,
On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > primitive instead.
> >
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > {
> > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
Which branch is this patch based on?
Thanks,
- Juri
> > do {
> > - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > -
> > /* No more policies in the list */
> > - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
> > + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
> > return NULL;
> > +
> > + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
> >
> > return policy;
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>
> --
> viresh
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 11:18 ` Juri Lelli
@ 2016-01-25 11:22 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 5:57 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-01-27 6:09 ` Gautham R Shenoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2016-01-25 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Lelli
Cc: Gautham R. Shenoy, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Shilpasri G Bhat
On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > primitive instead.
> > >
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > {
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
>
> Which branch is this patch based on?
Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ?
:)
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 11:22 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-01-27 5:57 ` Gautham R Shenoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gautham R Shenoy @ 2016-01-27 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Juri Lelli, Gautham R. Shenoy, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, Shilpasri G Bhat
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:52:15PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > > primitive instead.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > > {
> > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> >
> > Which branch is this patch based on?
>
> Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ?
> :)
Ah right! I found this issue while reviewing Juri's patches from the
cpufreq-cleanups branch and didn't switch back to pm-next before
making this change. Shall resend the patch.
>
> --
> viresh
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 11:18 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-25 11:22 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-01-27 6:09 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-01-27 10:10 ` Juri Lelli
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gautham R Shenoy @ 2016-01-27 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Lelli
Cc: Viresh Kumar, Gautham R. Shenoy, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, Shilpasri G Bhat
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > primitive instead.
> > >
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > {
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
>
> Which branch is this patch based on?
My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
cleanup patches.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Juri
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-25 9:46 [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list Gautham R. Shenoy
2016-01-25 9:50 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-01-27 6:32 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2016-01-27 6:36 ` Viresh Kumar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gautham R. Shenoy @ 2016-01-27 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Shilpasri G Bhat, Juri Lelli <Lelli, Gautham R. Shenoy
Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
primitive instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
The earlier version one was based on an Juri's experimental branch.
I have based this one on linux-pm.git linux-next branch.
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index c35e7da..e979ec7 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -48,11 +48,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
bool active)
{
do {
- policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
-
/* No more policies in the list */
- if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
+ if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
return NULL;
+
+ policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
} while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
return policy;
--
1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-27 6:32 ` [PATCH RESEND] " Gautham R. Shenoy
@ 2016-01-27 6:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2016-01-27 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gautham R. Shenoy
Cc: linux-pm, linux-kernel, Rafael J. Wysocki, Shilpasri G Bhat,
Juri Lelli <Lelli
On 27-01-16, 12:02, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> primitive instead.
>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> The earlier version one was based on an Juri's experimental branch.
> I have based this one on linux-pm.git linux-next branch.
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index c35e7da..e979ec7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -48,11 +48,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> bool active)
> {
> do {
> - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> -
> /* No more policies in the list */
> - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
> + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
> return NULL;
> +
> + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
>
> return policy;
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-27 6:09 ` Gautham R Shenoy
@ 2016-01-27 10:10 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-27 11:12 ` Gautham R Shenoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Juri Lelli @ 2016-01-27 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gautham R Shenoy
Cc: Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Shilpasri G Bhat
On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > > primitive instead.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > > {
> > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> >
> > Which branch is this patch based on?
>
> My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
> upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
> cleanup patches.
>
No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :)
Best,
- Juri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-27 10:10 ` Juri Lelli
@ 2016-01-27 11:12 ` Gautham R Shenoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gautham R Shenoy @ 2016-01-27 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Lelli
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy, Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, Shilpasri G Bhat
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:10:20AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > > > primitive instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > > > {
> > > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> > >
> > > Which branch is this patch based on?
> >
> > My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
> > upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
> > cleanup patches.
> >
>
> No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :)
It's a timely patchset!
Off late on POWER systems we've been observing a lot of jitters due to
the on-demand worker thread periodically interrupting a running task
to monitor (not necessarily change if the task!) frequency. We would
very much like to see the frequency monitoring/change happen from an
the timer-context instead of waking up a separate worker thread,
something similar to CPUFREQ_DRIVER_FAST in sched_governor. However,
that approach required a careful audit of all the locks that are
currently taken in cpufreq core and this patch set is a good attempt
in this direction.
Barring the issues raised by Viresh with respect to the locking
conventions around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT, I didn't have any
particular issues with it.
>
> Best,
>
> - Juri
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list
2016-01-27 6:36 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-01-27 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-27 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Gautham R. Shenoy, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Shilpasri G Bhat,
Juri Lelli <Lelli
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 12:06:11 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-01-16, 12:02, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > primitive instead.
> >
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > The earlier version one was based on an Juri's experimental branch.
> > I have based this one on linux-pm.git linux-next branch.
> >
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index c35e7da..e979ec7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -48,11 +48,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > bool active)
> > {
> > do {
> > - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > -
> > /* No more policies in the list */
> > - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
> > + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
> > return NULL;
> > +
> > + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
> >
> > return policy;
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Applied, thanks!
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-27 22:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-25 9:46 [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list Gautham R. Shenoy
2016-01-25 9:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-25 11:18 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-25 11:22 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 5:57 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-01-27 6:09 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-01-27 10:10 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-27 11:12 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-01-27 6:32 ` [PATCH RESEND] " Gautham R. Shenoy
2016-01-27 6:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-27 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.