Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1654227.8mz0SueHsU@kreacher> <87wo8rjsa4.fsf@riseup.net>
 <CAJZ5v0hAn0V-QhebFt=vqKK6gBLxjTq7SNOWOStt7huCXMSH7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hrOma52rocMsitvYUK6WxHAa0702_8XJn1UJZVyhz=rQ@mail.gmail.com> <877e0qj4bm.fsf@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <877e0qj4bm.fsf@riseup.net>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:38:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hH1XiphdakYFPmHLL+hFKw2U3YNU9HSRxsdRUV6ZtM5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU
 latency QoS interface
To:     Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
        "Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:09 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> wrote:
> >> >

[cut]

> >
> > And BTW, posting patches as RFC is fine even if they have not been
> > tested.  At least you let people know that you work on something this
> > way, so if they work on changes in the same area, they may take that
> > into consideration.
> >
>
> Sure, that was going to be the first RFC.
>
> > Also if there are objections to your proposal, you may save quite a
> > bit of time by sending it early.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that this series has clashed with the changes that
> > you were about to propose, but in this particular case in my view it
> > is better to clean up things and start over.
> >
>
> Luckily it doesn't clash with the second RFC I was meaning to send,
> maybe we should just skip the first?

Yes, please.

> Or maybe it's valuable as a curiosity anyway?

No, let's just focus on the latest one.

Thanks!