On 18-12-17, 19:18, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> 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. -- viresh
