![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 02/28, Roland McGrath wrote: > > That code dates from the original introduction of those two functions. > I can't see any reason why those ever had swapped order of the two checks. > I think it must have just been sloppy coding in the original work. > > I'm not clear on how the already-queued case could ever happen. Do we > really need that check at all? It shouldn't be possible for the timer to > be firing when it's already queued, because it won't have been reloaded. > It only reloads via do_schedule_next_timer after it's dequeued, or because > a 1 return value said it never was queued. This is true for the posix timers, but posix cpu timers case is different. Note the run_posix_cpu_timers()->cpu_timer_fire(). Oleg. | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-02-28 16:35 [W:2.247 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||