lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
Hi Viresh,

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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.

Though I think that will solve Rafael's concern of polluting the flags
for something schedutil specific. I also feel adding extra callback
parameter is cleaner than 2 new clear flags.

Thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-19 04:18    [W:3.116 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site