* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Propose a better way to code this then? It's not my fault that dealing
> with callbacks in C is so messy. _here just massages one callback
> prototype (smp_call_function's) into another (cpufreq's) because both
> callbacks do the same in this case.
see the last iteration of the cleanups i did. Naming the function after
what it does, and prefixing the preempt-unsafe one __ does the trick.
> The r_s_f BTW stands for resync_sc_freq which is a function earlier in
> the file and should be familiar to a serious reader.
I consider myself a serious reader and it wasnt obvious to me. Names
must always be descriptive, we cannot hold all the details in our heads
all the time.
Ingo
-
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/
[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]
