From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU clamp groups accounting Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:33:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20180413113337.GU14248@e110439-lin> References: <20180409165615.2326-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180409165615.2326-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180413084019.GQ4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180413111753.GT14248@e110439-lin> <20180413112926.GQ4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180413112926.GQ4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Paul Turner , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 13-Apr 13:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:17:53PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > On 13-Apr 10:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > +static inline void init_uclamp(void) > > > > > > WTH is that inline? > > > > You mean I can avoid the attribute? > > ... or that I should do it in another way? > > yea, its init code, no need to go all inline with that (gcc will likely > inline it anyway because static-with-single-callsite). Yes, indeed... I think I've just got the right above init_schedstats() as a reference and lazily want for code consistency :( However, if we remove inline, we should probably still add an __init, isn't it? -- #include Patrick Bellasi