linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:13:38 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure

On 08-02-19, 11:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> At least some of the underlying mechanics seem to be very similar.
> You have priority lists, addition and removal of requests etc.
> 
> Arguably, PM QoS may be regarded as a bit overly complicated, but
> maybe they both can use a common library underneath?
 
> As I said I like the idea of replacing cpufreq notifiers with
> something nicer, so if you can avoid doing almost-the-same-ting in two
> different frameworks, it would be fine by me.

Ok, will try to move to PM QoS. Thanks.

-- 
viresh