[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110051141.GD7897@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:11:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] perf/core: Split up pinned and non pinned
processing
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> Split up pinned and non-pinned events processing in two helpers
> so that it's more flexible to handle them seperately.
> +static void
> +__perf_event_sched_in_volatile(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
Small naming suggestion: 'volatile' is a C keyword and rarely used
outside of that context in the kernel, which makes this function name a
bit confusing.
So instead of pinned/volatile, a pinned/flexible naming would be more
readable, i.e. __perf_event_sched_in_flexible() or so.
Also, most of the static functions in kernel/perf_event.c could lose
their perf_event_ prefix - we already know it's a perf thing, right?
That will shorten quite a few function names there.
These functions would turn into __sched_in_pinned()/__sched_in_flexible().
Agreed?
Ingo
--
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