From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755256AbdGKGBM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:01:12 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:33895 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754832AbdGKGBL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:01:11 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:31:06 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant
 load-tracking support
Message-ID: <20170711060106.GL2928@vireshk-i7>
References: <20170706094948.8779-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gBPNDBYWbuHVaB7deNHSZKziaAeybSw3mg+S8V_roO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <22f004af-0158-8265-2da5-34743f294bfb@arm.com>
 <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <bac850da-6256-2a92-abfe-71d229cc99dc@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bac850da-6256-2a92-abfe-71d229cc99dc@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10-07-17, 13:02, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Yes, I will change this. The #define approach is not really necessary
> here since we're not in the scheduler hot-path and inlining is not
> really required here.

It would be part of scheduler hot-path for the fast-switching case, isn't it ?
(I am not arguing against using weak functions, just wanted to correct above
statement).

-- 
viresh