Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Dec 18 2017 - 22:22:33 EST
On 18-12-17, 19:18, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 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.
Okay, I will then wait for Rafael to come online and comment on what
he would prefer before posting.