Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:40:14 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/6] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup
 controller
Message-ID: <20190801104014.amwvjdvabedsd5t7@e110439-lin>
References: <20190718181748.28446-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190718181748.28446-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190725114104.GA32159@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190725114104.GA32159@blackbody.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 25-Jul 13:41, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 07:17:43PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
> > +static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_min_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > +				    char *buf, size_t nbytes,
> > +				    loff_t off)
> > +{
> > [...]
> > +static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_max_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > +				    char *buf, size_t nbytes,
> > +				    loff_t off)
> > +{
> > [...]
> These two functions are almost identical yet not trivial. I think it
> wouldn be better to have the code at one place only and distinguish by
> the passed clamp_id.

Good point, since the removal of the boundary checks on values we now
have two identical methods. I'll factor our the common code in a
single function.

Cheers,
Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi