Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:06:21 +0200 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] softirq_pending() |
| |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:58:41AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > The problem is that, on some of the platforms that don't ignore > the argument, the code generation is much better. > > GCC doesn't consider smp_processor_id() like some const local > variable, so multiple invocations are assumed to return different > values because in many cases 'current_thread_info()' is obscured. > > Your patch is going to make a lot of new code get generated on > x86 for example, so I don't think it should be applied even though > my own platforms are not effected by this issue.
Okay, thanks forthe explanation. I don't think it matters in this case because there's exactly one case where we pass an variable into softirq_pending() instead of a direct, uncached smp_processor_id() - and that is in arch/cris/ which is UP only.
I'll try to remember the hint so I know what do to this pops up the next time, though :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |