Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

From: Daniel Lezcano
Date: Fri May 02 2014 - 09:35:30 EST

On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another
function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out.
Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes
a nested indentation level.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>

Well, this conflicts with

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/

which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to
return negative values because of

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/

(and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).

Any ideas how to resolve that?

I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before
than mines then I will refresh and resend them.

Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle
than the scheduler, but either way would be fine.

Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be shared between sched and pm ?

I am open to any other suggestion.

Please see the other message I've just sent. :-)



--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/