Mark, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:30:07AM +0200, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> >> >> This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments. >> >> High level implementation: >> ... >> 7. Misc fixes to improve code readability: >> . rename of the PM QoS implementation file from pm_qos_params.[ch] to pm_qos.[ch] > I picked the name for the file as pm_qos_params over pm_qos because I > wanted to make it implicitly clear that this was not an full QOS > implementation. True QOS carries expectations similar to real time and > as the infrastructure is closer to "good intentioned" than even "best > effort" and offers no notification when the QOS request is not able to > be met and really doesn't implement a true QOS at all, (it just provides > the parameter interface for part of one its missing the notification > interface when the service level is not met and I think a few other > things.) So I wanted to have it named a bit different from just pm_qos. > > This said I'm not supper attached to the naming of the modules. If > folks want to change it I wouldn't complain (too much anyway;). Ok got the idea. I do not know what name to chose though. As suggested previously the name pm_qos_params does not reflect the implementation, that is why I renamed it. > > --mark > PS I'll look at the rest of the patches tomorrow, this time for real as > I'm about to have more free time to focus on non-work stuff :) Thanks you for reviewing! > FWIW this write up sounds interesting. Hope it is readable ;p Regards, Jean _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
