[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091020131916.GI10727@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:19:16 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using
different service trees
On Tue, Oct 20 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >> We use different service trees for different priority classes.
> >> This allows a simplification in the service tree insertion code, that no
> >> longer has to consider priority while walking the tree.
> >
> >> +enum wl_prio_t {
> >> + IDLE_WL = -1,
> >> + BE_WL = 0,
> >> + RT_WL = 1
> >> +};
> >
> > WL?
> It stands for "workload". When defining all-caps constants, one has to
> avoid possible clashes adding pre/suf-fixes.
> Any suggestion for better naming?
Nobody will guess that. Make variable/enum names as short as possible,
but not so short that their meaning are incomprehensible. Suggestion
would be to use IDLE_WORKLOAD etc.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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