Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: remove redundant code
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Oct 22 2012 - 04:46:47 EST
On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative
> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of
> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which
> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage.
> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to
> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues.
> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view.
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Rafael,
> This patch is *NOT TESTED*... (only compiled)
> Out of office now, so can't test it on board.
> Floated it, so that i can get some early comments if possible.
Didn't crashed :)
Tested both ondemand and conservative governors and they are working
> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 4 +-
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 558 +++++++------------------
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 314 ++++++++++++++
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 177 ++++++++
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 728 ++++++++++-----------------------
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 864 insertions(+), 919 deletions(-)
diffstat might not look awesome, but considering two new files with
file headers, #includes, etc added.. this looks reasonable :)
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/