cpuclass: use more policy agnostic terms in comments - #733
Closed
klihub wants to merge 3 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Avoid using 'balloon' in cpuclass configuration comments / description. Use the more neutral 'policy' term. Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <krisztian.litkey@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <krisztian.litkey@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <krisztian.litkey@intel.com>
klihub
force-pushed
the
fixes/cpuclass/more-policy-agnostic-comments
branch
from
August 6, 2026 13:48
fda92bd to
d460e43
Compare
Collaborator
Author
|
Closing in favor of stacked #738 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please, review/merge #719 first.
Use policy agnostic terms ('policy' instead of 'balloons') in various comments related to cpuclasses and PCT. Fix old/incorrect function name in a docstring comment.
Note: This PR is stacked on top of #719. It is not github-stacked because (I think) PRs can't be github-stacked if the branches are not originating from the same source repository.