Re: [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> 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.

see the last iteration of the cleanups i did. Naming the function after 
what it does, and prefixing the preempt-unsafe one __ does the trick.

> 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.

I consider myself a serious reader and it wasnt obvious to me. Names 
must always be descriptive, we cannot hold all the details in our heads 
all the time.

	Ingo