Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:49:28 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/10] rcu: make dead code really dead |
| |
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> > > cleanup: make dead code really dead
Is it just me or this spinlock change is more than just a cleanup ? Or maybe it just needs a much more descriptive changelog.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > kernel/rcutree.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c > index e54c123..6042fb8 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c > @@ -1236,11 +1236,11 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed) > break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */ > > case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK: > - > - raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled */ > if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT != RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK) > break; /* So gcc recognizes the dead code. */ > > + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled */ > + > /* Record dyntick-idle state. */ > force_qs_rnp(rsp, dyntick_save_progress_counter); > raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled */ > -- > 1.7.0 >
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
| |