Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] thermal for v5.7-rc1 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:53:02 +0200 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On 08/04/2020 05:14, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:26 AM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thermal/linux.git >> tags/thermal-v5.7-rc1 > > Ho humm. > > This caused a conflict between commit > > f12e4f66ab6a ("thermal/cpu-cooling: Update thermal pressure in case > of a maximum frequency capping") > > that came in through the scheduler updates from Ingo Molnar, and commit > > ff44f672d741 ("thermal/drivers/cpufreq_cooling: Fix return of > cpufreq_set_cur_state") > > from the thermal tree. > > The conflict wasn't complicated, but the reason I mention it is that I > resolved it in a way that neither of those commits had done. > > In particular, the thermal tree did > > ret = freq_qos_update_request(..) > return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > where that whole "return negative or zero" logic is new (it used to > return positive values, the fix was to return zero instead). > > The scheduler tree did > > ret = freq_qos_update_request(..) > if (ret > 0) {.. do thermal pressure thing ..} > return ret; > > which obviously still returns that positive value. > > My resolution to the conflict was to not take that return with a > conditional operation, but instead just add a > > ret = 0; > > to inside that thermal pressure if-statement, and avoid returning a > non-zero positive value that way. > > I just wanted both sides to be aware of my non-traditional merge > resolution, and take a look.
The resolution looks correct to me.
Thanks
-- Daniel
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |