On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 12:53:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:45:28 -0700 > Mark Gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The following is the cleaned up patch implementing the power management > > quality of service infrastructure discussed at the pm summit last June. > > > > It is a genralization of the latency code put into the kernel last year > > by Arjan. > > > > I would like to get this code included in the MM tree and to get some > > milage on it. > > > > One thing to note about this implementation is that it exposes an > > interface to user space for registering pm_qos constraints in addition > > to the kernel exports. Its a file based interface where a module can > > register a constraint and the constraint is valid only as long as the > > device node is held open. Upon closing of the device node that > > constraint is cleaned up. > > > > The patch set is in two postings. > > 1) the base parameter code (this email) > > 2) replacing of latency.c/latenc.h with pm_qos_params.c/pm_qos_params.h > > I wouldn't really view this as an adequate changelog. > > - The Subject:s are pretty pathetic (please see my suggesed replacements) uhg. Your right. > > - There is no description of the proposed new kernel<->userspace > interfaces. > the above description is light on specific details. > As you are proposing new and permanent enhancements to the Linux API, > this is something which should be spelled out in some detail. Because we > can change the implementation, but we can not ever change your interface. > > It would be nice to get that interface described in Documentation/ > somewhere, but it is *critical* that the design be fully revealed right > now, during review. I'll provide this. > > > Anyway, I am not a suitable person to review this submission. > > I'll put the patches in -mm for a bit of eyeball-and-test (not that anyone > will know how to test it, due to the secret interfaces) but I do not want > to move this code into mainline until someone who is familiar with the PM > code has performed a detailed review of both the implementation and the > design (whatever that is!). > > Please send new, complete descriptions of these patches. I don't think > they can be effectively reviewed without that information. Except perhaps > by someone who was at the PM summit, but that's cheating. > I will do this. --mgross _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
