On 9 July 2014 16:14, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Yeah, it looks like we can get rid of this. Also,
>
> } while (t.task && pkt_dev->running && !signal_pending(current));
>
> is present in the closing "}" of do-while loop and probably we
> don't need to check t.task here as well.
Actually No. t.task is modified from hrtimer handler and so this check
would stay:
Diff I have added to this patch:
diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c
index f911acd..cc2694e 100644
--- a/net/core/pktgen.c
+++ b/net/core/pktgen.c
@@ -2187,8 +2187,7 @@ static void spin(struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev,
ktime_t spin_until)
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
hrtimer_start_expires(&t.timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
- if (likely(t.task))
- schedule();
+ schedule();
hrtimer_cancel(&t.timer);
} while (t.task && pkt_dev->running &&
!signal_pending(current));
--
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/
