On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/