[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160519021326.GG24777@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:43:26 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.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 18-05-16, 23:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
I agree.
I did it because I am required to use these macros for the
interactive-governor and have to move them to cpufreq.h anyway.
Now that we have to move them out, I thought that we should perhaps
use them for schedutil as well. This would look more relevant to
schedutil once it has more tunables instead of just one.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists