Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using different service trees

[Jeff Moyer]

Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + * Index in the service_trees.
>>> + * IDLE is handled separately, so it has negative index
>>> + */
>>> +enum wl_prio_t {
>>> + Â Â IDLE_WORKLOAD = -1,
>>> + Â Â BE_WORKLOAD = 0,
>>> + Â Â RT_WORKLOAD = 1
>>> +};
>>
>> What's wrong with IOPRIO_CLASS_(RT|BE|IDLE)? ÂWhy invent another enum?
> Because I want to index inside my internal structures, and I have no
> control over the former ones.

Well, I already know and understand IOPRIO*, and it seems like it maps
exactly to what you're doing.  I'll leave it up to Jens, though, this is
a minor detail.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/