Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If the timer is currently running on another CPU, __mod_timer()
> spins with interrupts disabled and timer->lock held. I think it
> is better to spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timer->lock) in __mod_timer's
> retry path.
>
> This patch is unneccessary long. It is because it tries to cleanup
> the code a bit. I do not like the fact that lock+test+unlock pattern
> is duplicated in the code.
>
> If you think that this patch uglifies the code or does not match
> kernel's coding style - just say nack :)
I've seen worse ;)
I think this makes it a bit more kernel-like?
--- 25/kernel/timer.c~timers-enable-irqs-in-__mod_timer-tidy 2005-03-21
21:41:03.000000000 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/kernel/timer.c 2005-03-21 21:41:57.000000000 -0800
@@ -174,12 +174,13 @@ int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer
{
tvec_base_t *old_base, *new_base;
unsigned long flags;
- int new_lock, ret;
+ int new_lock;
+ int ret = -1;
BUG_ON(!timer->function);
check_timer(timer);
- for (ret = -1; ret < 0; ) {
+ do {
spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->lock, flags);
new_base = &__get_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
old_base = timer_base(timer);
@@ -227,7 +228,7 @@ unlock:
if (new_lock)
spin_unlock(&new_base->lock);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timer->lock, flags);
- }
+ } while (ret == -1);
return ret;
}
_
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
