On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> In init_timers() we need to call init_timers_cpu() for boot CPU. For this,
> currently we are emulating a call to hotplug notifier. Probably this was done
> initially to get rid of code redundancy. But this sequence always called a
> single routine, i.e. init_timers_cpu(), and so calling that routine directly
> would be better. This would get rid of emulating a notifier call, few
> typecasts
> and the extra steps we are doing in notifier callback.
>
> So, this patch calls init_timers_cpu() directly from init_timers().
>
Same here: I don't think this is a good idea, for the same reason I gave
for patch 12.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/timer.c | 8 +-------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 4360edc..d13eb56 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -1666,15 +1666,9 @@ static struct notifier_block timers_nb = {
>
> void __init init_timers(void)
> {
> - int err;
> -
> /* ensure there are enough low bits for flags in timer->base pointer */
> BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct tvec_base) & TIMER_FLAG_MASK);
> -
> - err = timer_cpu_notify(&timers_nb, (unsigned long)CPU_UP_PREPARE,
> - (void *)(long)smp_processor_id());
> - BUG_ON(err != NOTIFY_OK);
> -
> + BUG_ON(init_timers_cpu(smp_processor_id()));
> init_timer_stats();
> register_cpu_notifier(&timers_nb);
> open_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ, run_timer_softirq);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
