Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeff Moyer <> | Subject | Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using different service trees | Date | Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:08:48 -0400 |
| |
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote: >> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes: >>> + * Index in the service_trees. >>> + * IDLE is handled separately, so it has negative index >>> + */ >>> +enum wl_prio_t { >>> + IDLE_WORKLOAD = -1, >>> + BE_WORKLOAD = 0, >>> + RT_WORKLOAD = 1 >>> +}; >> >> What's wrong with IOPRIO_CLASS_(RT|BE|IDLE)? Why invent another enum? > Because I want to index inside my internal structures, and I have no > control over the former ones.
Well, I already know and understand IOPRIO*, and it seems like it maps exactly to what you're doing. I'll leave it up to Jens, though, this is a minor detail.
Cheers, Jeff -- 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/
| |