Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753193AbcKTDxZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2016 22:53:25 -0500 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:57434 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753004AbcKTDxY (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2016 22:53:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [05/20] hwmon/via-cputemp: Remove pointless CPU check on each CPU To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior References: <20161117183541.8588-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20161119172331.GA25098@roeck-us.net> <20161119225354.gbynqtyzdxpgyqu5@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rt@linutronix.de, Thomas Gleixner , Jean Delvare , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <53da100c-f7ee-1acd-8004-dc49a0cded87@roeck-us.net> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:53:21 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161119225354.gbynqtyzdxpgyqu5@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 943 Lines: 19 On 11/19/2016 02:53 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-19 09:23:31 [-0800], Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Applied to -next. > > Thanks. Since you took that one, could you also please consider to apply > |[PATCH 06/20 v2] hwmon/via-cputemp: Convert to hotplug state machine > ? It depends on the 5th patch from the series which applied. > Problem is that I have no idea if any of the patches in this series really work. I wasn't copied on all patches, meaning I don't have the infrastructure, meaning I'll have to dig them up from patchwork for testing, and/or figure out if the required infrastructure is already in the kernel, and that all takes time. Just Acking or applying the the patches w/o testing doesn't seem appropriate, given their level of intrusiveness. I did spend most of today working through my backlog of hwmon patches, but that series simply was too much. I hope I'll get to it tomorrow, but no promises. Guenter