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/
[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]
