[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=fxFhnfbHhUVtRAGU18COFM967dYo3AOUYZcytezYKuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:54:37 +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 <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move slow path from workqueue to
SCHED_FIFO task
On 12 November 2016 at 03:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> +static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
>> {
>> - struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
>> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy =
>> + container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
>
> Why this change?
Mistake ..
>> static struct sugov_policy *sugov_policy_alloc(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
>> + struct task_struct *thread;
>> + struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 50 };
>
> I'd define a symbol for the 50. It's just one extra line of code ...
Sure.
As I asked in the cover letter, will you be fine if I send the same patch
for ondemand/conservative governors ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists