On 2 April 2015 at 19:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:21:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +#define for_each_active_base(_index, _base, _cpu_base, _active_bases)
>> \
>> + for ((_active_bases) = (_cpu_base)->active_bases; \
>> +
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:21:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> +#define for_each_active_base(_index, _base, _cpu_base, _active_bases)
> \
> + for ((_active_bases) = (_cpu_base)->active_bases; \
> + (_index) = ffs(_active_bases), \
> +
At several instances we iterate over all possible clock-bases for a particular
cpu-base. Whereas, we only need to iterate over active bases.
We already have per cpu-base 'active_bases' field, which is updated on
addition/removal of hrtimers.
This patch creates for_each_active_base(), which uses
At several instances we iterate over all possible clock-bases for a particular
cpu-base. Whereas, we only need to iterate over active bases.
We already have per cpu-base 'active_bases' field, which is updated on
addition/removal of hrtimers.
This patch creates for_each_active_base(), which uses
On 2 April 2015 at 19:15, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:21:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
+#define for_each_active_base(_index, _base, _cpu_base, _active_bases)
\
+ for ((_active_bases) = (_cpu_base)-active_bases; \
+
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:21:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
+#define for_each_active_base(_index, _base, _cpu_base, _active_bases)
\
+ for ((_active_bases) = (_cpu_base)-active_bases; \
+ (_index) = ffs(_active_bases), \
+
6 matches
Mail list logo