Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Tue Feb 05 2013 - 16:54:33 EST

Next message: Kasatkin, Dmitry: "Re: [RFC 2/2] initramfs with digital signature protection"
Previous message: Michael Wolf: "[PATCH 4/4] Add a timer to allow the separation of consigned fromsteal time."
In reply to: Nathan Zimmer: "RE: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems"
Next in thread: Nathan Zimmer: "[PATCH v2 linux-next 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 02:58:35 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> Ok, I'll rebase and retest from linux-next then.

Thanks!

--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Kasatkin, Dmitry: "Re: [RFC 2/2] initramfs with digital signature protection"
Previous message: Michael Wolf: "[PATCH 4/4] Add a timer to allow the separation of consigned fromsteal time."
In reply to: Nathan Zimmer: "RE: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems"
Next in thread: Nathan Zimmer: "[PATCH v2 linux-next 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]