Re: [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:05 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > On 5/25/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > > call_r_s_f() still needs an urgent rerenaming though =B-)
> > > 
> > > So does "call_r_s_f_here()" :-)
> > 
> > That name makes me think of INTERCAL's 'DO COME FROM' statement.
> > And any code that makes one think of INTERCAL is say,.. special.. :-)
> 
> Propose a better way to code this then? It's not my fault that dealing with 
> callbacks in C is so messy. _here just massages one callback
> prototype (smp_call_function's) into another (cpufreq's) because
> both callbacks do the same in this case.

I see you point; however a function called:
call_<some_other_function>_here() just doesn't make sense. It says as
much as: we should call some_other_function() but for some reason we
dont.

> The r_s_f BTW stands for resync_sc_freq which is a function earlier 
> in the file and should be familiar to a serious reader.

It was.