Hi,
during my mbox analyses, I had a quick look on the results, and I saw
plenty of mails like these:
<004701ce33e3$cbcb8ab0$6362a010$%choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<1369047116-9378-49-git-send-email-luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Please find those two messages attached. Those two mails are considered
similar.
One mail contains the original patch from the author, the other comes
from someone else proposing the very same patch for stable review:
"This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we
applyit?"
Both mails of course correctly match, but in fact the stable-review-mail
has nothing to do with the history of the original patch.
Just wanted to mention that, because it might be necessary to respect
such cases in further analyses.
Cheers
Ralf
--- Begin Message ---This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we
- From: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: 'Jonghwan Choi' <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 08:01:10 +0900
applyit?
------------------
From: "Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>"
commit 6e45eb12fd1c741d556bf264ee98853b5f3104e5 upstream
Boot_freq is for saving booting freq. But exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init
is called in hotplug. If boot_freq is existed in exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init,
boot_freq could be changed.
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
index 7012ea8..41fc550 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
@@ -222,8 +222,6 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy
*policy)
cpufreq_frequency_table_get_attr(exynos_info->freq_table,
policy->cpu);
- locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
-
/* set the transition latency value */
policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 100000;
@@ -288,6 +286,8 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
goto err_vdd_arm;
}
+ locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
+
register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb);
if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {
--
1.7.9.5
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---3.5.7.13 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
- From: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:50:48 +0100
know.
------------------
From: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 6e45eb12fd1c741d556bf264ee98853b5f3104e5 upstream.
Boot_freq is for saving booting freq. But exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init
is called in hotplug. If boot_freq is existed in exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init,
boot_freq could be changed.
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
index b243a7e..0a28dc3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
@@ -210,8 +210,6 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy
*policy)
cpufreq_frequency_table_get_attr(exynos_info->freq_table, policy->cpu);
- locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
-
/* set the transition latency value */
policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 100000;
@@ -275,6 +273,8 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
goto err_vdd_arm;
}
+ locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
+
register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb);
if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {
--
1.8.1.2
--- End Message ---
