Hi Matthias, On 19. 2. 15. 오전 1:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > Hi Chanwoo, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:25:52PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >> 2019년 2월 14일 (목) 오후 7:16, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성: >>> >>> The field ->stop_polling indicates whether load monitoring should be/is >>> stopped, it is set in devfreq_monitor_suspend(). Change the variable to >>> hold the general state of load monitoring (stopped, running, suspended). >>> Besides improving readability of conditions involving the field and this >>> prepares the terrain for moving some duplicated code from the governors >>> into the devfreq core. >>> >>> Hold the devfreq lock in devfreq_monitor_start/stop() to ensure proper >>> synchronization. >> >> IMHO, I'm not sure that there are any benefits changing >> from 'stop_polling' to 'monitor_state'. I have no objections >> if Myungjoo confirms it. > > I agree that as an isolated change there isn't a clear benefit. > However in the context of the series the change is needed to > avoid resuming a load monitor that wasn't even started. > > In case this series isn't accepted I'd still suggest to change the > name from 'stop_polling' to 'suspended'. I read 'stop_polling' as a > call for action, while 'suspended' is a state. IMO at least in some > contexts conditions using a state is clearer. I agree to change the variable name 'stop_polling' to 'suspended' for using the correct meaningful name. > > Cheers > > Matthias > > -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics
