On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:07:09 -0700 > Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote: > > >> > It is rather long. Although I actually hate the SUGOV, it is easily >> > grepable. Just comment what it stands for. We can always change it >> > later. >> >> I was thinking why not just SCHED_FLAG_CPUFREQ. That says its for >> cpufreq purposes, and is a bit self-documenting. "WORKER" is a bit >> redundant and can be dropped in my opinion. > > I was thinking that too, but was wondering how tightly coupled is this > with SCHED_DEADLINE? I like the searchability of SUGOV, where as > CPUFREQ is still quite broad.
Yes this is tightly coupled with DL so in that case probably a more specific name is better as you mentioned. thanks, -Joel
