On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 07:28:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 08-09-15, 03:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
There really are two cases, either you pass a CPU or gov_queue_work() has to walk policy->cpus.
Right (At least for now, we are doing just that.)
Doing it the way you did hides that IMO.
Maybe. But I see it otherwise. Adding special meaning to a variable (like int cpu == -1 being the special case to specify policy->cpus) hides things morei, as we need to look at how it is decoded finally in the routine gov_queue_work().
Oh well.
I've just realized that if you combined this patch with the [6/9], you wouldn't need to make any changes to gov_queue_work() at all, because that patch removes the case in point entirely.
Thanks, Rafael