On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 07:28:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-09-15, 03:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > There really are two cases, either you pass a CPU or gov_queue_work() has to > > walk policy->cpus. > > Right (At least for now, we are doing just that.) > > > Doing it the way you did hides that IMO. > > Maybe. But I see it otherwise. Adding special meaning to a variable > (like int cpu == -1 being the special case to specify policy->cpus) > hides things morei, as we need to look at how it is decoded finally in > the routine gov_queue_work().
Oh well. I've just realized that if you combined this patch with the [6/9], you wouldn't need to make any changes to gov_queue_work() at all, because that patch removes the case in point entirely. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
