On 31 March 2015 at 13:15, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>> + if (!boot_done) {
>> + boot_done = 1; /* skip the boot cpu */
>
> So it would be a lot more descriptive to name this flag
> 'boot_cpu_skipped'?
Yes.
> Also,
* Viresh Kumar wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> Memory for tvec_base is allocated separately for boot CPU (statically) and
> non-boot CPUs (dynamically).
>
> The reason is because __TIMER_INITIALIZER() needs to set ->base to a valid
> pointer (because we've made NULL special, hint:
* Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
Memory for tvec_base is allocated separately for boot CPU (statically) and
non-boot CPUs (dynamically).
The reason is because __TIMER_INITIALIZER() needs to set -base to a valid
pointer (because
On 31 March 2015 at 13:15, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
+ if (!boot_done) {
+ boot_done = 1; /* skip the boot cpu */
So it would be a lot more descriptive to name
From: Peter Zijlstra
Memory for tvec_base is allocated separately for boot CPU (statically) and
non-boot CPUs (dynamically).
The reason is because __TIMER_INITIALIZER() needs to set ->base to a valid
pointer (because we've made NULL special, hint: lock_timer_base()) and we cannot
get a compile
From: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
Memory for tvec_base is allocated separately for boot CPU (statically) and
non-boot CPUs (dynamically).
The reason is because __TIMER_INITIALIZER() needs to set -base to a valid
pointer (because we've made NULL special, hint: lock_timer_base()) and we
6 matches
Mail list logo
