Re: [RFC] QoS params patch

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:19:21 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +#define QOS_RESERVED 0
> > > +#define QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1
> > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_LATENCY 2
> > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_THROUGHPUT 3
> > > +
> > > +#define QOS_NUM_CLASSES 4
> > > +#define QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE -1
> > > +
> > > +int qos_add_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 value);
> > > +int qos_update_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 new_value);
> > > +void qos_remove_requirement(int qos, char *name);
> > 
> > It's a bit rude stealing the entire "qos" namespace like this - there are
> > many different forms of QoS, some already in-kernel.
> > 
> > s/qos/pm_qos/g ?
> 
> I suppose it is a bit inconiderate.  I could grow to like pm_qos,
> performance_throttling_constraint_hint_infrastructure is a bit too
> wordy. 
> 
> I suppose I should use qospm as thats the way it was put up on that
> lesswatts.org web page. 
> 
> Would qospm be good enough?
> 

Don't think it matters a lot, but kernel naming tends to be big-endian (ie:
we have net_ratelimit, not ratelimit_net), so the major part (pm) would
come first under that scheme.