Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:39:44 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
        Hank <han.lin@mediatek.com>,
        Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com>,
        Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if
 max_spare_cap is 0
Message-ID: <ZQKqsL0MCZCW3Rpi@gmail.com>
References: <20230821224504.710576-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20230821224504.710576-2-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <d5407fdf-8e49-1035-3188-f96248c96c44@arm.com>
 <20230826204156.5gznalle6qzwl7y3@airbuntu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230826204156.5gznalle6qzwl7y3@airbuntu>
Precedence: bulk


* Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:

> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> I will wait for the maintainers to see if they would like a v5 to address 
> the nitpicks or it's actually good enough and happy to pick this up. I 
> think the commit messages explain the problem clear enough and doesn't 
> warrant sending a new version. But happy to do so if there's insistence 
> :-)

Yeah, please always do that: sensible review replies with actionable 
feedback cause a semi-atomatic "mark this thread as read, there will be a 
next version" reflexive action from maintainers, especially if a series is 
in its 4th iteration already...

Thanks,

	Ingo