Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Mon Dec 18 2017 - 22:18:54 EST
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18-12-17, 12:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>> For example, swithing from:
>> - void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
>> - unsigned int flags))
>> + void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
>> + unsigned int flags, bool set))
>> Where the additional boolean is actually used to define which
>> operation we wanna perform on the flags?
> The code will eventually have the same complexity or ugliness in both
> the cases. I would like to start with another flag for now and see if
> people prefer another parameter.
Though I think that will solve Rafael's concern of polluting the flags
for something schedutil specific. I also feel adding extra callback
parameter is cleaner than 2 new clear flags.