On 30 January 2013 21:53, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:32:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I believe this routine should be rather present in cpufreq core code,
>> as their might
>> be other users of it. Its really not related to dbs or governors.
>>
>> My ideas about the name of routine then:
>> - policy_is_shared()
>> - or something better you have :)
>
> So you are suggesting to rethink this function to be related to policy
> rather than dbs... this may as well become an inline in cpufreq.h, as:
>
> static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
> }
Perfect.
> I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it
> because that's the comment in the declaration:
>
> cpumask_var_t cpus; /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */
> cpumask_var_t related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */
>
> And those two are already confusing as a starting point.
I will fix these comments with a patch of mine.
> Anyway, this sounds fine to me. If you think this is useful I can send
> a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do
> further cleanup work on this code.
>
> /me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind.
You can make it part of your patchsets v8.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
