From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@google.com>, "Srivatsa S . Bhat" <srivatsa@mit.edu>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] cpufreq: Properly handle physical CPU hot-add/hot-remove Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:32:27 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKohpokC_ufaGcMeEiaxUrduL+vLYSc2KzCPoR+Aj-CGYALYSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1406250448-470-5-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> On 25 July 2014 06:37, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > When CPUs are physically added/removed, its cpuX sysfs directory is > dynamically added/removed. To handle this correctly, the cpufreq sysfs > nodes also need to be added/removed dynamically. Hmm, in that case why should we take this thread? I mean, if we do need to add/remove sysfs links or move kobjects around, what would we achieve with this patchset? > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index d9fc6e5..97edf05 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback); > static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock); > DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_lock); > static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list); > +static cpumask_t has_symlink; > > /* This one keeps track of the previously set governor of a removed CPU */ > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], cpufreq_cpu_governor); > @@ -865,7 +866,10 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > unsigned int j; > int ret = 0; > > - for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus) { > + /* Only some of the related CPUs might be present. So, create > + * symlinks only for those. > + */ Proper styles please. > + for_each_cpu_and(j, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask) { > struct device *cpu_dev; > > if (j == policy->kobj_cpu) > @@ -877,6 +881,7 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > "cpufreq"); > if (ret) > break; > + cpumask_set_cpu(j, &has_symlink); > } > return ret; > } > @@ -1101,9 +1106,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > unsigned long flags; > bool recover_policy = cpufreq_suspended; > > - if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) > - return 0; > - Why? > pr_debug("adding CPU %u\n", cpu); > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > @@ -1111,7 +1113,19 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > * CPU because it is in the same boat. */ > policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > if (policy) { > - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)) > + /* If a CPU gets physically plugged in after one or more of > + * its related CPUs are ONLINE, we need to create a symlink > + * for it since it wouldn't have been created when the policy > + * was initialized. Do this as soon as it's plugged in. > + */ > + if (sif && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink)) { Why check for sif? > + ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, > + "cpufreq"); > + if (!ret) > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink); > + } > + Move all this to cpufreq_add_policy_cpu().. > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) && cpu_online(cpu)) > ret = cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, dev); > else > ret = 0; > @@ -1120,6 +1134,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > } > #endif > > + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) > + return 0; > + Don't know why we moved it here.. cpufreq_add_dev will only be called for online CPUs.. > if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem)) > return 0; > > @@ -1303,25 +1320,24 @@ static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int old_cpu) > { > struct device *cpu_dev; > + unsigned int new_cpu; > int ret; > > /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */ > - cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu)); > + for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask) > + if (new_cpu != old_cpu) > + break; > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(new_cpu); > > sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj); > if (ret) { > pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret); > - > - down_write(&policy->rwsem); > - cpumask_set_cpu(old_cpu, policy->cpus); > - up_write(&policy->rwsem); > - > ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, > "cpufreq"); > - > return -EINVAL; > } > + cpumask_clear_cpu(new_cpu, &has_symlink); > policy->kobj_cpu = cpu_dev->id; > > return cpu_dev->id; > @@ -1407,8 +1423,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev, > cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus); > up_read(&policy->rwsem); > > - if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) > + if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) { > sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink); > + } else { > + cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu); > + } This has_symlink thing has made it much more complicated..
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v4 4/5] cpufreq: Properly handle physical CPU hot-add/hot-remove Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:32:27 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKohpokC_ufaGcMeEiaxUrduL+vLYSc2KzCPoR+Aj-CGYALYSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1406250448-470-5-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> On 25 July 2014 06:37, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > When CPUs are physically added/removed, its cpuX sysfs directory is > dynamically added/removed. To handle this correctly, the cpufreq sysfs > nodes also need to be added/removed dynamically. Hmm, in that case why should we take this thread? I mean, if we do need to add/remove sysfs links or move kobjects around, what would we achieve with this patchset? > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index d9fc6e5..97edf05 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback); > static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock); > DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_lock); > static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list); > +static cpumask_t has_symlink; > > /* This one keeps track of the previously set governor of a removed CPU */ > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], cpufreq_cpu_governor); > @@ -865,7 +866,10 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > unsigned int j; > int ret = 0; > > - for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus) { > + /* Only some of the related CPUs might be present. So, create > + * symlinks only for those. > + */ Proper styles please. > + for_each_cpu_and(j, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask) { > struct device *cpu_dev; > > if (j == policy->kobj_cpu) > @@ -877,6 +881,7 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > "cpufreq"); > if (ret) > break; > + cpumask_set_cpu(j, &has_symlink); > } > return ret; > } > @@ -1101,9 +1106,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > unsigned long flags; > bool recover_policy = cpufreq_suspended; > > - if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) > - return 0; > - Why? > pr_debug("adding CPU %u\n", cpu); > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > @@ -1111,7 +1113,19 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > * CPU because it is in the same boat. */ > policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > if (policy) { > - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)) > + /* If a CPU gets physically plugged in after one or more of > + * its related CPUs are ONLINE, we need to create a symlink > + * for it since it wouldn't have been created when the policy > + * was initialized. Do this as soon as it's plugged in. > + */ > + if (sif && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink)) { Why check for sif? > + ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, > + "cpufreq"); > + if (!ret) > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink); > + } > + Move all this to cpufreq_add_policy_cpu().. > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) && cpu_online(cpu)) > ret = cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, dev); > else > ret = 0; > @@ -1120,6 +1134,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > } > #endif > > + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) > + return 0; > + Don't know why we moved it here.. cpufreq_add_dev will only be called for online CPUs.. > if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem)) > return 0; > > @@ -1303,25 +1320,24 @@ static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int old_cpu) > { > struct device *cpu_dev; > + unsigned int new_cpu; > int ret; > > /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */ > - cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu)); > + for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask) > + if (new_cpu != old_cpu) > + break; > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(new_cpu); > > sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj); > if (ret) { > pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret); > - > - down_write(&policy->rwsem); > - cpumask_set_cpu(old_cpu, policy->cpus); > - up_write(&policy->rwsem); > - > ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, > "cpufreq"); > - > return -EINVAL; > } > + cpumask_clear_cpu(new_cpu, &has_symlink); > policy->kobj_cpu = cpu_dev->id; > > return cpu_dev->id; > @@ -1407,8 +1423,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev, > cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus); > up_read(&policy->rwsem); > > - if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) > + if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) { > sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink); > + } else { > + cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu); > + } This has_symlink thing has made it much more complicated..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-07 11:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 207+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-07-10 2:37 [PATCH] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend Saravana Kannan 2014-07-10 2:37 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-11 4:18 ` [PATCH v2] " Saravana Kannan 2014-07-11 4:18 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-11 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-11 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-11 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-11 9:59 ` skannan 2014-07-11 9:59 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-11 9:59 ` skannan 2014-07-11 10:07 ` skannan 2014-07-11 10:07 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-11 10:07 ` skannan 2014-07-11 10:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-11 10:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-11 10:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-12 2:44 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-12 2:44 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-12 2:44 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 6:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 6:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 6:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 19:08 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 19:08 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 19:08 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 4:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 4:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 4:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 5:36 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 5:36 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 5:36 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 5:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 5:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 5:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-15 6:58 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-15 6:58 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-15 6:58 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-15 17:35 ` skannan 2014-07-15 17:35 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-15 17:35 ` skannan 2014-07-16 7:44 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 7:44 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 7:44 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 5:44 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 5:44 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 5:44 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 7:49 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 7:49 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 7:49 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-12 3:06 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-12 3:06 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-12 3:06 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 6:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 6:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 6:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-14 19:10 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 19:10 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-14 19:10 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-11 7:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-11 7:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-11 10:02 ` skannan 2014-07-11 10:02 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-15 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Simplify hotplug/suspend handling Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 22:47 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 22:47 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 0:28 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 0:28 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 8:30 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:30 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:30 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 19:19 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:19 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:19 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 8:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 11:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 11:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 11:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 13:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 13:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 13:13 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 18:04 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 18:04 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 18:04 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-17 5:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 5:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 5:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:56 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-17 5:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 5:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 5:35 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-18 3:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-18 3:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-18 3:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-18 4:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-18 4:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-18 4:19 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 20:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 20:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 20:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 21:45 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 21:45 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 21:45 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-17 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-17 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 14:29 ` Dirk Brandewie 2014-07-16 14:29 ` Dirk Brandewie 2014-07-16 15:28 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 15:28 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 15:28 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 19:42 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:42 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:42 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: Simplify and fix mutual exclusion with hotplug Saravana Kannan 2014-07-15 22:47 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 8:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 8:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-16 19:34 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:34 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 19:34 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] Simplify hotplug/suspend handling Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] cpufreq: Don't wait for CPU to going offline to restart governor Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 20:47 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 20:47 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] cpufreq: Keep track of which CPU owns the kobj/sysfs nodes separately Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-07 9:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 9:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 9:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-31 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-31 22:15 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 22:15 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 23:48 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 23:48 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 23:48 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-07 10:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 10:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 10:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 9:17 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 9:17 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 9:17 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-11 22:13 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-11 22:13 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-11 22:13 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-12 8:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 8:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 8:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] cpufreq: Properly handle physical CPU hot-add/hot-remove Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-07 11:02 ` Viresh Kumar [this message] 2014-08-07 11:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 11:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-11 22:15 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-11 22:15 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-11 22:15 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] cpufreq: Delete dead code related to policy save/restore Saravana Kannan 2014-07-25 1:07 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-07 11:06 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 11:06 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-08-07 11:06 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-29 5:52 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] Simplify hotplug/suspend handling skannan 2014-07-29 5:52 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-29 5:52 ` skannan 2014-07-30 0:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-30 0:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-31 20:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-31 20:25 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-08-07 6:04 ` skannan 2014-08-07 6:04 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-10-16 8:53 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-10-16 8:53 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-10-16 8:53 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-10-23 21:41 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-10-23 21:41 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-10-23 21:41 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 22:02 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-16 22:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2014-07-16 22:35 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-16 22:35 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-24 3:02 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-24 3:02 ` Saravana Kannan 2014-07-24 5:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-24 5:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-24 5:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2014-07-24 9:12 ` skannan 2014-07-24 9:12 ` skannan at codeaurora.org 2014-07-24 9:12 ` skannan 2014-08-12 9:17 [PATCH v4 4/5] cpufreq: Properly handle physical CPU hot-add/hot-remove Viresh Kumar 2014-08-12 9:17 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAKohpokC_ufaGcMeEiaxUrduL+vLYSc2KzCPoR+Aj-CGYALYSg@mail.gmail.com \ --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \ --cc=skannan@codeaurora.org \ --cc=srivatsa@mit.edu \ --cc=toddpoynor@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.