the load calculation is completely broken in the govenor.

please see the fixed code:
`static void ex_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load)
{
	struct ex_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info = &per_cpu(ex_cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = dbs_info->cdbs.cur_policy;
	struct dbs_data *dbs_data = policy->governor_data;
	struct ex_dbs_tuners *ex_tuners = dbs_data->tuners;
	unsigned int freq_next = 0;
	unsigned int j, avg_load, cur_freq, max_freq, target_freq = 0;

	cur_freq = policy->cur;
	max_freq = policy->max;

	avg_load = (ex_data.prev_load + load) >> 1;

	if (load > up_threshold_level[1]) {
		int index = get_cpu_freq_index(cur_freq, dbs_data);

		if (FREQ_NEED_BURST(cur_freq) &&
				load > up_threshold_level[0]) {
			freq_next = max_freq;
		}

		else if (avg_load > up_threshold_level[0]) {
			freq_next = tblmap[2 + ex_tuners->powersave][index];
		}

		else if (avg_load <= up_threshold_level[1]) {
			freq_next = tblmap[0 + ex_tuners->powersave][index];
		}

		else {
			if (load > up_threshold_level[0]) {
				freq_next = tblmap[2 + ex_tuners->powersave][index];
			}

			else {
				freq_next = tblmap[1 + ex_tuners->powersave][index];
			}
		}

		target_freq = ex_freq_increase(policy, freq_next);

		__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, target_freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);

		if (target_freq > ex_data.active_floor_freq)
			dbs_info->down_floor = 0;

		goto finished;
	}

	if (cur_freq == policy->min)
		goto finished;

	if (cur_freq >= ex_data.active_floor_freq) {
		if (++dbs_info->down_floor > ex_tuners->sampling_down_factor)
			dbs_info->down_floor = 0;
	} else {
		dbs_info->down_floor = 0;
	}

	if (load <
	    (ex_tuners->up_threshold - ex_tuners->down_differential)) {
		freq_next = (load * cur_freq) /
				(ex_tuners->up_threshold -
				 ex_tuners->down_differential);

		if (dbs_info->down_floor) {
			freq_next = MAX(freq_next, ex_data.active_floor_freq);
		} else {
			freq_next = MAX(freq_next, policy->min);
			if (freq_next < ex_data.active_floor_freq)
				dbs_info->down_floor = ex_tuners->sampling_down_factor;
		}

		__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq_next,
			CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
	}

finished:
	ex_data.prev_load = load;
	return;
}`


Just came here to do the same thing but it's already there! A setting in the Webinterface for the CPU Usage setting ;) - could you push a update @ryecoaaron for this plugin?


here for example I think the `<:Integer` constraint wasn't present on all of the methods that this deprecation is replacing


and here as well, the floatfuncs.jl method didn't have `<:Integer`


It should be

> Every looping construct **should** always be able to terminate and it **should** give a reasonable answer


@DeveloperITA grazie mille, ho risolto ma in un altro modo:
Andando comunque su Build Path -> configure Build Path è stato sufficiente cambiare il percorso in cui Eclipse cercasse "java-naoqi-sdk-2.1.4.13-win32-vs2010.jar":
Il file non veniva trovato perchè veniva cercato nell'utente "Lorenzo" (il suo, immagino).
In pratica ho solamente fatto in modo che Eclipse capisse che il file era stato spostato in un altro computer rispetto a quello in cui era stato creato.
La ringrazio ancora per l'aiuto fornito (se non mi avesse scritto del Java Build Path non sarei mai riuscito a trovare una soluzione).


Also add, "always check user's input for mistakes"


Try **all** reasonable values


for loop **updates** the count variable automatically


*built-in


Emnei


integers*


Representation of tuple is parenthesis (i.e round bracket). Correct this


---
title: 小侠
date: 2016-12-31
---

#江湖小侠

*  昵称：小侠&尹随风
*  芳龄：二八？？？
*  等级：初出茅庐
*  技能：android初级，Java入门级
*  兵器：eclipse，AS
*  主城：大明湖畔，趵突泉旁，雨荷家乡

---
   我愿一生潇洒，恣意风流。

   大江南北，小桥流水，长河落日，山舞银蛇，红装素裹，何处不可去得。

   也曾想，英姿飒爽，羽扇纶巾，金戈铁马，气吞山河。

   到如今，乘长风，破万里浪。挂云帆，济沧海。愿得一人同往矣！


Isn't this a no-op ?
```
depth = depth / ONE_PLY * ONE_PLY;
```


Well written notes. Grammar has improved a lot too. Keep it up :+1:


>>I'm tired of these **motherfucking commits** on this **motherfucking flower box**!
\- Samuel L. Jackson


> "I HAS BUKKIT"

😄 Thanks for the funny reference and for closing that old issue with a solution 👍


Extending from `unittest.TestCase` makes the class a TestCase which usually contains test methods. The base class was not extending this because it should not be executed directly. It only contains basic stuff for sub-classes. Sub-classes should be executed so they extend explicitly from `unittest.TestCase`.

Is there a reason for changing this? It introduces a IMHO a ugly setup method which raises an exception in case the base class tests were executed.