Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754347Ab3JYNzr (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:55:47 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:41900 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753791Ab3JYNzp (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:55:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14730355.7hm7UiW5IU@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <14730355.7hm7UiW5IU@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:25:45 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 00/34] CPUFreq Cleanup Part III From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lists linaro-kernel , Patch Tracking , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 994 Lines: 21 On 25 October 2013 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Having considered that a bit I think that I'd prefer one patch doing all of > these changes in one go (and with all applicable ACKs collected), one of the > reasons being that if it is necessary to revert that stuff, whatever the > reason, it will be much easier to do that with just one commit than with > 34 of them. With a similar reason I think the probability is more that a revert might be required for individual drivers as they may need to switch back to ->target() instead of ->target_index() and so keeping them separate might be better. In case we need to revert all patches due to some breakage, we can always do that in a single commit if required. What do you say? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/