Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756757AbcKXExn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:53:43 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:36728 "EHLO mail-wj0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755197AbcKXExm (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:53:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 05:53:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Robin Randhawa , Steve Muckle Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only used in slow path Message-ID: <20161124045337.GB18417@gmail.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 534 Lines: 19 Firstly, please start changes to scheduler code with a verb. This title: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only used in slow path is totally inadequate as it's a statement that says nothing about the _change_. What does the patch do? Does it add, remove, modify, fix or clean up? * Viresh Kumar wrote: > Execute the irq-work specific initialization/exit code only when the > fast path isn't available. Is this an optimization? A correctness fix? Thanks, Ingo