On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:49:08AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 01:03:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:49PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>
> > > > +static inline void generic_idle_enter(void)
> > > > +static inline void generic_idle_exit(void)
>
> > > That naming is terrible..
> >
> > Yeah sorry :-\. The naming I chose was to be aligned with the
> > CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY naming. I am open to ideas on that.
>
> entry_idle_{enter,exit}() ?
Sounds good to me.
> > > I'm confused.. arch_cpu_idle_{enter,exit}() weren't conveniently placed
> > > for you?
> >
> > The way this patch series works, it does not depend on arch code as much as
> > possible. Since there are other arch that may need this patchset such as
> > ARM,
> > it may be better to keep it in the generic entry code. Thoughts?
>
> I didn't necessarily mean using those hooks, even placing your new hooks
> right next to them would've covered the exact same code with less lines
> modified.
Ok sure. I will improve it this way for next posting.
thanks,
- Joel
