[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180081000.7348.39.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:16:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:05 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > On 5/25/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > > call_r_s_f() still needs an urgent rerenaming though =B-)
> > >
> > > So does "call_r_s_f_here()" :-)
> >
> > That name makes me think of INTERCAL's 'DO COME FROM' statement.
> > And any code that makes one think of INTERCAL is say,.. special.. :-)
>
> Propose a better way to code this then? It's not my fault that dealing with
> callbacks in C is so messy. _here just massages one callback
> prototype (smp_call_function's) into another (cpufreq's) because
> both callbacks do the same in this case.
I see you point; however a function called:
call_<some_other_function>_here() just doesn't make sense. It says as
much as: we should call some_other_function() but for some reason we
dont.
> The r_s_f BTW stands for resync_sc_freq which is a function earlier
> in the file and should be familiar to a serious reader.
It was.
-
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