Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1618914 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while running RT/DL tasks

Started byPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
First post2017-04-07 17:40 +0200
Last post2017-04-07 19:00 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while  running RT/DL tasks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-07 17:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while  running RT/DL tasks Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> - 2017-04-07 19:00 +0200

#1618914 — Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while running RT/DL tasks

FromPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date2017-04-07 17:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while running RT/DL tasks
Message-ID<ttE9s-A7-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:45:04PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> +	struct task_struct *curr = cpu_curr(smp_processor_id());

Isn't that a weird way of writing 'current' ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1618975

FromPatrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Date2017-04-07 19:00 +0200
Message-ID<ttFoT-1r2-43@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1618914
On 07-Apr 17:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:45:04PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +	struct task_struct *curr = cpu_curr(smp_processor_id());
> 
> Isn't that a weird way of writing 'current' ?

Right... (cough)... it's a new fangled way. :-/

Will cleanup before reposting the series.

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web