On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2016-03-15 14:14:48) > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:22:05PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > > > cpufreq_trigger_update() was introduced in "cpufreq: Rework the > > > scheduler hooks for triggering updates"[0]. Consensus is that this > > > helper is not needed and removing it will aid in experimenting with > > > deadline and rt capacity requests. > > > > > > Instead of reverting the above patch, which includes useful renaming of > > > data structures and related functions, simply remove the function, > > > update affected kerneldoc and change rt.c and deadline.c to use > > > cpufreq_update_util(). > > > > This fails to explain how the need for these hooks is dealt with. > > Sorry, I don't understand your point. The removed hook, > "cpufreq_trigger_update()" was only used in deadline.c and rt.c, and > this patch effectively reverts Rafael's patch that introduces that > function. > > It simply does not revert the other changes in Rafael's patch, such as > some renaming. > > deadline.c and rt.c are made to use cpufreq_update_util() and pass in > ULONG_MAX for capacity and 0 for time. This is exactly what they did > before patch "cpufreq: Rework the scheduler hooks for triggering > updates".
Clearly I need to learn to read again.. You're right.
