Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756795Ab3DSGNv (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 02:13:51 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]:47749 "EHLO mail-la0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756330Ab3DSGNt (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 02:13:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130418231351.GA25621@windriver.com> References: <1365811457-31924-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <20130415093330.GC17715@gmail.com> <1366283681.19383.5.camel@laptop> <51701722.1070407@windriver.com> <20130418231351.GA25621@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:13:47 +0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched: move content out of core files for load average From: Rakib Mullick To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2824 Lines: 62 On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched: move content out of core files for load average] On 18/04/2013 (Thu 23:06) Rakib Mullick wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Paul Gortmaker >> wrote: >> > On 13-04-18 07:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 11:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> * Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Recent activity has had a focus on moving functionally related blocks of stuff >> >>>> out of sched/core.c into stand-alone files. The code relating to load average >> >>>> calculations has grown significantly enough recently to warrant placing it in a >> >>>> separate file. >> >>>> >> >>>> Here we do that, and in doing so, we shed ~20k of code from sched/core.c (~10%). >> >>>> >> >>>> A couple small static functions in the core sched.h header were also localized >> >>>> to their singular user in sched/fair.c at the same time, with the goal to also >> >>>> reduce the amount of "broadcast" content in that sched.h file. >> >>> >> >>> Nice! >> >>> >> >>> Peter, is this (and the naming of the new file) fine with you too? >> >> >> >> Yes and no.. that is I do like the change, but I don't like the >> >> filename. We have _waaaay_ too many different things we call load_avg. >> >> >> >> That said, I'm having a somewhat hard time coming up with a coherent >> >> alternative :/ >> > >> > Several of the relocated functions start their name with "calc_load..." >> > Does "calc_load.c" sound any better? >> > >> How about sched_load.c ? > > No, that doesn't work since it duplicates the path info in the file > name -- something that none of the other kernel/sched/*.c files do. > Do a "ls -1 kernel/sched" to see what I mean if it is not clear. > I understand your point, so just take sched out of it. I was just trying to give a hint, if it could help. > I honestly didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the file name. > I chose load_avg.c since it had a parallel to the /proc/loadavg that > linux has had since the early 1990s. I have no real attachment > to that name, but at the same time I'd like to avoid having name > choice become a bikeshedding event... > I also didn't spend a lot of time thinking about file name. What I said, it's from intuition and what I've seen so far. Name, it should be simple, clear and should suggest what it's dealing with. But I also think that, name doesn't make things different, how it works - that's what is important. Thanks, Rakib -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/