From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937325AbdLSDlZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:41:25 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:40161 "EHLO mail-pl0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932888AbdLSDlV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:41:21 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovXox9+ameIMrR55AI2pSx3OL1lHzEoT6T1/A+qE8AnSh4dSNXidPaGn6bUr/itmFXseYJghQ== Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:11:18 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Patrick Bellasi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags Message-ID: <20171219034118.GP19815@vireshk-i7> References: <20456740.6R3DDKEUDv@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171218045945.GG19815@vireshk-i7> <20171218115943.GL19815@vireshk-i7> <20171218121453.GH19821@e110439-lin> <20171219031237.GM19815@vireshk-i7> <20171219032217.GN19815@vireshk-i7> <20171219032647.GO19815@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18-12-17, 19:30, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Yes that's clean to me but then as Rafael said, the use of this flag > will be too specific for schedutil-only sg_cpu->flags clearing purpose > right? And so would be the extra parameter ? -- viresh