Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:19:21 -0700
From: Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-pm <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] QoS params patch
Message-ID: <20070928171921.GA3219@linux.intel.com>
Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com
References: <20070926223712.GA22029@linux.intel.com> <20070926224026.GA23218@linux.intel.com> <20070927232501.79f9f4bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070927232501.79f9f4bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1220
Lines: 35

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > +#define QOS_RESERVED 0
> > +#define QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1
> > +#define QOS_NETWORK_LATENCY 2
> > +#define QOS_NETWORK_THROUGHPUT 3
> > +
> > +#define QOS_NUM_CLASSES 4
> > +#define QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE -1
> > +
> > +int qos_add_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 value);
> > +int qos_update_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 new_value);
> > +void qos_remove_requirement(int qos, char *name);
> 
> It's a bit rude stealing the entire "qos" namespace like this - there are
> many different forms of QoS, some already in-kernel.
> 
> s/qos/pm_qos/g ?

I suppose it is a bit inconiderate.  I could grow to like pm_qos,
performance_throttling_constraint_hint_infrastructure is a bit too
wordy. 

I suppose I should use qospm as thats the way it was put up on that
lesswatts.org web page. 

Would qospm be good enough?

--mgross
-
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/