lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] QoS params patch
    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:19:21 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:

    > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > +#define QOS_RESERVED 0
    > > > +#define QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1
    > > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_LATENCY 2
    > > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_THROUGHPUT 3
    > > > +
    > > > +#define QOS_NUM_CLASSES 4
    > > > +#define QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE -1
    > > > +
    > > > +int qos_add_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 value);
    > > > +int qos_update_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 new_value);
    > > > +void qos_remove_requirement(int qos, char *name);
    > >
    > > It's a bit rude stealing the entire "qos" namespace like this - there are
    > > many different forms of QoS, some already in-kernel.
    > >
    > > s/qos/pm_qos/g ?
    >
    > I suppose it is a bit inconiderate. I could grow to like pm_qos,
    > performance_throttling_constraint_hint_infrastructure is a bit too
    > wordy.
    >
    > I suppose I should use qospm as thats the way it was put up on that
    > lesswatts.org web page.
    >
    > Would qospm be good enough?
    >

    Don't think it matters a lot, but kernel naming tends to be big-endian (ie:
    we have net_ratelimit, not ratelimit_net), so the major part (pm) would
    come first under that scheme.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-28 20:55    [W:0.021 / U:0.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site