Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:05:36 +0800 | From | Dongsheng Yang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 9/9] trace: Replace hardcoding of 19 with MAX_NICE. |
| |
Hi Peter. It seems the all other patches in this set were all applied to tip except this one. What is the problem with the [9/9]? Is there any thing I can do?
Thanx
On 02/11/2014 03:34 PM, Dongsheng Yang wrote: > Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > --- > kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c > index a5457d5..0434ff1 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c > @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ static int write_iteration = 50; > module_param(write_iteration, uint, 0644); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(write_iteration, "# of writes between timestamp readings"); > > -static int producer_nice = 19; > -static int consumer_nice = 19; > +static int producer_nice = MAX_NICE; > +static int consumer_nice = MAX_NICE; > > static int producer_fifo = -1; > static int consumer_fifo = -1; > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static void ring_buffer_producer(void) > > /* Let the user know that the test is running at low priority */ > if (producer_fifo < 0 && consumer_fifo < 0 && > - producer_nice == 19 && consumer_nice == 19) > + producer_nice == MAX_NICE && consumer_nice == MAX_NICE) > trace_printk("WARNING!!! This test is running at lowest priority.\n"); > > trace_printk("Time: %lld (usecs)\n", time);
|  |