[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jtj8DnKjb6n8PYYw-Fx_aa=FJf3uvN+dtfLScfT4gVpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 23:01:31 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Reuse gov_attr_* macros in schedutil governor
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> These macros can be used by governors which don't use the common
> governor code present in cpufreq_governor.c and should be moved to the
> relevant header.
>
> Now that they are getting moved to the right header file, reuse them in
> schedutil governor as well (that required rename of show/store
> routines).
I'm not sure what the benefit is to be honest.
It adds one level of indirection to the definition of rate_limit_us,
but why is that better?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists