[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180215165212.GB25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:52:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christopher Diaz Riveros <chrisadr@...too.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next] sched/headers: Clean up <linux/sched.h>
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:43:18AM -0500, Christopher Diaz Riveros wrote:
> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ extern void io_schedule_finish(int token);
> extern long io_schedule_timeout(long timeout);
> extern void io_schedule(void);
>
> -/**
> +/*
> * struct prev_cputime - snapshot of system and user cputime
> * @utime: time spent in user mode
> * @stime: time spent in system mode
> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ struct prev_cputime {
> #endif
> };
>
> -/**
> +/*
> * struct task_cputime - collected CPU time counts
> * @utime: time spent in user mode, in nanoseconds
> * @stime: time spent in kernel mode, in nanoseconds
Why, are those not valid kerneldoc comments?
> @@ -437,20 +437,28 @@ struct sched_dl_entity {
> * during sched_setattr(), they will remain the same until
> * the next sched_setattr().
> */
> - u64 dl_runtime; /* Maximum runtime for each instance */
> - u64 dl_deadline; /* Relative deadline of each instance */
> - u64 dl_period; /* Separation of two instances (period) */
> - u64 dl_bw; /* dl_runtime / dl_period */
> - u64 dl_density; /* dl_runtime / dl_deadline */
> + /* Maximum runtime for each instance */
> + u64 dl_runtime;
> + /* Relative deadline of each instance */
> + u64 dl_deadline;
> + /* Separation of two instances (period) */
> + u64 dl_period;
> + /* dl_runtime / dl_period */
> + u64 dl_bw;
> + /* dl_runtime / dl_deadline */
> + u64 dl_density;
That's a whole lot less readable :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists