Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757042AbXI1Svv (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752874AbXI1Svo (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:44 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:37507 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752226AbXI1Svo (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:51:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: mgross@linux.intel.com Cc: linux-pm , lkml Subject: Re: [RFC] QoS params patch Message-Id: <20070928115141.c5a7c9da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070928171921.GA3219@linux.intel.com> References: <20070926223712.GA22029@linux.intel.com> <20070926224026.GA23218@linux.intel.com> <20070927232501.79f9f4bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070928171921.GA3219@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1528 Lines: 41 On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:19:21 -0700 Mark Gross wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross 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? > Don't think it matters a lot, but kernel naming tends to be big-endian (ie: we have net_ratelimit, not ratelimit_net), so the major part (pm) would come first under that scheme. - 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/