On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:44:19AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:08 AM, mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 14, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> > Hi Rafael, Mark,
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > On Saturday, August 13, 2011, mark gross wrote:
> >> > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:06:42PM +0200, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> > >> > From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > In preparation for the per-device constratins support:
> >> > >> > - rename update_target to pm_qos_update_target
> >> > >> > - generalize and export pm_qos_update_target for usage by the upcoming
> >> > >> > per-device latency constraints framework:
> >> > >> > . operate on struct pm_qos_constraints for constraints management,
> >> > >> > . introduce an 'action' parameter for constraints add/update/remove,
> >> > >> > . the return value indicates if the aggregated constraint value has
> >> > >> > changed,
> >> > >> > - update the internal code to operate on struct pm_qos_constraints
> >> > >> > - add a NULL pointer check in the API functions
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx>
> >> > ...
> >> > >> > +/* Action requested to pm_qos_update_target */
> >> > >> > +enum pm_qos_req_action {
> >> > >> > + PM_QOS_ADD_REQ, /* Add a new request */
> >> > >> > + PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ, /* Update an existing request */
> >> > >> > + PM_QOS_REMOVE_REQ /* Remove an existing request */
> >> > >> > +};
> >> > >> > +
> >> > >>
> >> > >> What do you need this enum for? The function names *_update_*, *_add_*,
> >> > >> and *_remove_* seem to be pretty redundant if you have to pass an enum
> >> > >> that could possibly conflict with the function name.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> >> > >> > +int pm_qos_update_target(struct pm_qos_constraints *c, struct plist_node *node,
> >> > >> > + enum pm_qos_req_action action, int value);
> >> > >> The action for update_target better damn well be "PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ" or
> >> > >> there is something strange going on.... BTW what shold this function do
> >> > >> if the pm_qos_req_action was *not* the UPDATE one?
> >> >
> >> > The meaning of pm_qos_update_target is 'update the PM QoS target
> >> > constraints lists'. As described in the changelog the intention of
> >> > this patch is to implement the constraints lists management logic in
> >> > update_target and simplify the API functions (add/update/remove). It
> >> > is also exported for the upcoming (patch 06/15]) to use it as well.
> >>
> >> The enums are fine by me and they allow us to simplify the code
> >> quite a bit.
> >>
> > Ok, but they look a bit sloppy to me as we now have an API that says
> > "add" we can actually pass in an enum that says "remove".
> We have an API that says 'update target' that we pass in a parameter
> that says 'add request', 'update request' or 'remove request'.
> If it is required I could just rename the internal function
> update_target, in a later patch.
You are right. I thought I saw the enum added to the other API's for
some reason. Still, with this update we have an API overloaded through
that enum parameter providing 2 add, 2 delete and 2 update API's Each
pair doing about the same thing.
To me it feels like a baby step toward an ioctl type of API that I don't
like. I'm not going to fight about it any more but I don't like such
API's as they tend to get hard to read and get out of control.
please rethink this a little.
--mark
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
