On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 08:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looking again at that patch (the commit message still doesn't strike
> me as wonderfully explanatory :^) makes me worry, though.
>
> Is that
>
> if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0)
> return;
>
> really right? If skip_clock_update was zero (normal), it now gets set
> to -1, which has its own specific meaning (see "force clock update"
> comment in kernel/sched/rt.c). Is that intentional? That seems insane.
Yeah, it was intentional. Least lines.
> Or should it be
>
> if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0) {
> rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
> return;
> }
>
> or what? Maybe there was a reason the patch never got applied even to -tip.
Peterz was looking at corner case proofing the thing. Saving those
cycles has been entirely too annoying.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/8/295
-Mike
--
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/
