[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171219031237.GM19815@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:42:37 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization
update flags
On 18-12-17, 12:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> For example, swithing from:
>
> - void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
> - unsigned int flags))
> + void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
> + unsigned int flags, bool set))
>
> Where the additional boolean is actually used to define which
> operation we wanna perform on the flags?
The code will eventually have the same complexity or ugliness in both
the cases. I would like to start with another flag for now and see if
people prefer another parameter.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists