On 03/26/2014 11:01 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> In switch_hrtimer_base() we have created a local variable basenum which is
>>> set
>>> to base->index. This variable is used at only one place. It makes
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > In switch_hrtimer_base() we have created a local variable basenum which is
> > set
> > to base->index. This variable is used at only one place. It makes code more
> > readable if we remove this variable
On 26 March 2014 17:13, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
>> + new_base = &new_cpu_base->clock_base[base->index];
>
> Further down, timer->base can be altered (and set to NULL too).
> So if we jump back to 'again', we'll end up in trouble.
> So I think its important to cache the value in basenum and
> u
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> In switch_hrtimer_base() we have created a local variable basenum which is set
> to base->index. This variable is used at only one place. It makes code more
> readable if we remove this variable use base->index directly.
>
No, this doesn't look right.
In switch_hrtimer_base() we have created a local variable basenum which is set
to base->index. This variable is used at only one place. It makes code more
readable if we remove this variable use base->index directly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
kernel/hrtimer.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 ins
5 matches
Mail list logo