On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ramesh Thomas wrote:
>> On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ramesh Thomas wrote:
>> On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>>>
>>> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM,
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ramesh Thomas wrote:
> On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > ---
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ramesh Thomas wrote:
> On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > ---
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Reinette Chatre
wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>
> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> +++
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Reinette Chatre
wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>
> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> @@ -28,16 +28,19
On 2017-11-03 at 12:50:15 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The special value of 0 for device resume latency PM QoS means
> "no restriction", but there are two problems with that.
>
> First, device resume latency PM QoS requests with 0 as
On 2017-11-03 at 12:50:15 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The special value of 0 for device resume latency PM QoS means
> "no restriction", but there are two problems with that.
>
> First, device resume latency PM QoS requests with 0 as the
> value are always put
On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>
> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> > @@ -28,16
On 2017-11-03 at 09:39:08 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
>
> On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> > @@ -28,16
Hi Rafael,
I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> @@ -28,16 +28,19 @@ enum pm_qos_flags_status {
> PM_QOS_FLAGS_ALL,
> };
>
Hi Rafael,
I started to test this but found myself triggering one of the warnings:
On 11/3/2017 4:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> @@ -28,16 +28,19 @@ enum pm_qos_flags_status {
> PM_QOS_FLAGS_ALL,
> };
>
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
The special value of 0 for device resume latency PM QoS means
"no restriction", but there are two problems with that.
First, device resume latency PM QoS requests with 0 as the
value are always put in front of requests with positive
values in
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
The special value of 0 for device resume latency PM QoS means
"no restriction", but there are two problems with that.
First, device resume latency PM QoS requests with 0 as the
value are always put in front of requests with positive
values in the priority lists used
14 matches
Mail list logo