On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +#define QOS_RESERVED 0 > > +#define QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1 > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_LATENCY 2 > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_THROUGHPUT 3 > > + > > +#define QOS_NUM_CLASSES 4 > > +#define QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE -1 > > + > > +int qos_add_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 value); > > +int qos_update_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 new_value); > > +void qos_remove_requirement(int qos, char *name); > > It's a bit rude stealing the entire "qos" namespace like this - there are > many different forms of QoS, some already in-kernel. > > s/qos/pm_qos/g ?
I suppose it is a bit inconiderate. I could grow to like pm_qos, performance_throttling_constraint_hint_infrastructure is a bit too wordy. I suppose I should use qospm as thats the way it was put up on that lesswatts.org web page. Would qospm be good enough? --mgross - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
