[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:23:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, efault@....de,
andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 2/3] sched: Fix the wakeup nomination for
sched_mc/smt_power_savings.
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 17:21 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> +/* Assign the sched-domain level which can nominate preferred wake-up cpu */
> + rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> + rd->authorized_nomination_level = SD_LV_NONE;
> +
> + if (active_power_savings_level >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP) {
> + struct sched_domain *sd;
> + enum sched_domain_level authorized_nomination_level =
> + SD_LV_NONE;
> +
> + for_each_domain(first_cpu(*cpu_map), sd) {
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE))
> + continue;
> + authorized_nomination_level = sd->level;
> + }
> +
> + rd->authorized_nomination_level = authorized_nomination_level;
> + }
Very odd looking comments there, and that enum init wrapping looks
weird. Either exceed 80 chars, or write it in a second line like:
enum sched_domain_level authorized_nomination_level;
authorized_nomination_level = SD_LV_NONE;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists