Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)

On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 21:26 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 
> > The name space here is bugging me a little. Maybe prefix them with
> > "pm_latency" so you'd have "pm_latency_set_acceptable()" ,
> > "pm_latency_modify_acceptable()" , something like that. Likewise with
> > the file names , "include/linux/pm_latency.h"
> > 
> 
> there is no reason why this should JUST be about power management....

I'm just suggesting it would be nice to have a clear prefix on each
function. It's up to you what that prefix is.

Daniel

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 22 of 23] IB/ipath - print warning if LID not acquired within one minute
• Next by Date: [PATCH 02/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Remove duplicate declaration of exit_io_context() [try #4]
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]