On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Does the (currently being tested) patch below fix things up? If not,
> please fill me in on the further error of my ways.
Looks ok.
That said, couldn't that last dummy gp_init_delay variable:
> +/* Delay in jiffies for grace-period initialization delays, debug only. */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT
> +static int gp_init_delay = CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT_DELAY;
> module_param(gp_init_delay, int, 0644);
> +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT */
> +static const int gp_init_delay;
> +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT */
be just a
#define gp_init_delay 0
for the non-CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT case, so that the code
that then does
+ if (gp_init_delay > 0 &&
+ !(rsp->gpnum % (rcu_num_nodes * PER_RCU_NODE_PERIOD)))
would just trivially compile away.
I guess the compiler *might* see a 'static const int' that is never
touched and realize it's always zero, but it's not obvious that will
be the case.
Linus
Linus
--
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/
