Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:35:42 -0700
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 21:26 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
The name space here is bugging me a little. Maybe prefix them with
"pm_latency" so you'd have "pm_latency_set_acceptable()" ,
"pm_latency_modify_acceptable()" , something like that. Likewise with
the file names , "include/linux/pm_latency.h"
there is no reason why this should JUST be about power management....
I'm just suggesting it would be nice to have a clear prefix on each
function. It's up to you what that prefix is.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- From: Arjan van de Ven
- Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- From: Arjan van de Ven
- [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 18/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Make it possible to disable the block layer [try #4]
- Next by Date: [PATCH 12/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Move the ReiserFS device ioctl compat stuff to the ReiserFS driver [try #4]
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|