On Monday, March 28, 2016 09:47:53 AM Steve Muckle wrote: > On 03/25/2016 06:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> @@ -1726,6 +1810,34 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifie > >>> >> * GOVERNORS * > >>> >> *********************************************************************/ > >>> >> > >>> >> +/** > >>> >> + * cpufreq_driver_fast_switch - Carry out a fast CPU frequency switch. > >>> >> + * @policy: cpufreq policy to switch the frequency for. > >>> >> + * @target_freq: New frequency to set (may be approximate). > >>> >> + * > >>> >> + * Carry out a fast frequency switch from interrupt context. > >> > > >> > I think that should say atomic rather than interrupt as this might not > >> > be called from interrupt context. > > > > "Interrupt context" here means something like "context that cannot > > sleep" and it's sort of a traditional way of calling that. I > > considered saying "atomic context" here, but then decided that it > > might suggest too much. > > > > Maybe something like "Carry out a fast frequency switch without > > sleeping" would be better? > > Yes I do think that's preferable. I also wonder if it makes sense to > state expectations of how long the operation should take - i.e. not only > will it not sleep, but it is expected to complete "quickly." However I > accept that it is not well defined what that means. Maybe a mention that > this may be called in scheduler hot paths. OK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
