On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 03:41:13PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > +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 ?
> 
> lat_qos or something might be more suitable.. it's a latency property, not
> a power management one (even if pm ends up being the primary user of it).

Its not just latency otherwise I'd agree with you.  right now I'm
thinking of changing things to "qospm" unless there folks feel strongly
about pm_qos.

--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/