On 08/04/2013 10:19 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which
On 08/04/2013 10:19 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
synthetic case than what you patch does, which
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is
>> failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the
>> day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the
>> same value, and
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 09:19:56 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> >> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
> >> synthetic case than what you
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 09:19:56 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
synthetic case than what you
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is
failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the
day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the
same value,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC
>> work. That can be discussed later
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> But we cannot achieve either of those for v3.11, the only
>> possibilities seem to be either a) revert efaa14c, or b) keep it and
>> apply my patch. Anything else doesn't
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> >>> Do we still need to revert commit efaa14c if
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Do we still need to revert commit efaa14c if this patch is applied?
>>
>> I guess not. At least in this machine changing
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If the _BCL
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu aaron@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu aaron@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Do we still need to revert commit efaa14c if this patch is applied?
I
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu aaron@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Do
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu aaron@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
But we cannot achieve either of those for v3.11, the only
possibilities seem to be either a) revert efaa14c, or b) keep it and
apply my patch. Anything else
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC
work. That can be discussed
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM
On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2])
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM,
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>
> >> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
> >>
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
>> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
>>
>> In case you want to
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of levels matches
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
>> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
>> confuse a returned level to
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
confuse a returned level to mean the
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
In case you want to
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
Yes, the patch is correct,
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at
On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
>> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
>> confuse a returned
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
> confuse a returned level to mean the index.
>
> For example:
>
> current_level =
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
confuse a returned level to mean the index.
For example:
current_level = max_level = 100
test_level = 0
returned level = 100
In this case 100
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
confuse a returned level to mean the index.
For example:
current_level = max_level = 100
test_level = 0
returned level = 100
In this case 100
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
confuse a returned level to mean the index.
For example:
current_level =
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
confuse a returned
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br-levels[2]) will
be 0, and if the number
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at
50 matches
Mail list logo
