From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753343AbaILHl3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 03:41:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:53423 "EHLO mail-ob0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752814AbaILHlW (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 03:41:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-11-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20140911123412.GY3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> <20140911140444.GH4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:41:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] sched: get CPU's utilization statistic To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel , Preeti U Murthy , Russell King - ARM Linux , LAK , Rik van Riel , Morten Rasmussen , Mike Galbraith , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Daniel Lezcano , Dietmar Eggemann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11 September 2014 21:17, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> >> Any other opinions before Vince goes and applies sed on patches? ;-) > > I don't mind either way, but for sure someone (possibly me) is going to > confuse the two soon enough. > > Please include in the code some formal definition in the context of the > scheduler. A comment block right before the corresponding get_cpu_* > accessors should be good enough. ok > > > Nicolas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vincent.guittot@linaro.org (Vincent Guittot) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 10/12] sched: get CPU's utilization statistic In-Reply-To: References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-11-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20140911123412.GY3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> <20140911140444.GH4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11 September 2014 21:17, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> >> Any other opinions before Vince goes and applies sed on patches? ;-) > > I don't mind either way, but for sure someone (possibly me) is going to > confuse the two soon enough. > > Please include in the code some formal definition in the context of the > scheduler. A comment block right before the corresponding get_cpu_* > accessors should be good enough. ok > > > Nicolas