Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the tip tree

[Rob Lee]

Steven and Stephen,

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 18:40 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> diff --cc drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> index 6588f43,56de5f7..0000000
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> @@@ -92,15 -109,13 +109,13 @@@ int cpuidle_idle_call(void
>>                 return 0;
>>         }
>>
>> -       target_state = &drv->states[next_state];
>> -
>>  -      trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, next_state, dev->cpu);
>>  -      trace_cpu_idle(next_state, dev->cpu);
>>  +      trace_power_start_rcuidle(POWER_CSTATE, next_state, dev->cpu);
>>  +      trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(next_state, dev->cpu);
>>
>> -       entered_state = target_state->enter(dev, drv, next_state);
>> +       entered_state = cpuidle_enter_ops(dev, drv, next_state);
>>
>>  -      trace_power_end(dev->cpu);
>>  -      trace_cpu_idle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu);
>>  +      trace_power_end_rcuidle(dev->cpu);
>>  +      trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu);
>>
>
> Looks good. My change was just a rename of trace_power_* and
> trace_cpu_*, and it looks like another change was the clean up of
> target_state. This is a trivial conflict, and there should be no
> surprises here.
>
> -- Steve
>

Looks good to me as well.

Who should carry this fixup?

Best Regards,
Rob

>
>
>>         if (entered_state >= 0) {
>>                 /* Update cpuidle counters */
>
--
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/