On 25/06/2018 23:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 25/06/2018 10:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> + * It is up to the user of this framework to provide a lock at an
>>>> + * upper level to prevent stupid things to happen, like starting while
>>>> + * we are unregistering.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> The English above and elsewhere needs some polishing IMO, but I can
>>> take care of that. :-)
>>
>> I can give a try and if you are still unhappy, you change them in a
>> better way.
>
> Well, I could tell you what I would write, but then it'll take less
> time and effort if I just write it myself. :-)
Ok.
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> +static void idle_injection_setup(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = MAX_USER_RT_PRIO /
>>>> 2 };
>>>> +
>>>> + set_freezable();
>>>
>>> Why do you need set_freezable() here?
>>
>> We don't want to continue injecting idle cycles when the system is
>> suspended.
>
> And where's the corresponding try_to_freeze() called?
Yes, it is missing. I suppose try_to_freeze() should be put at the
beginning of the idle_inject_fn() function, right ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
