lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/4] timers: Consolidate base->next_timer update
Date
On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:27 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
>
> > >
> > > -static void internal_add_timer(struct tvec_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
> > > +static void
> > > +__internal_add_timer(struct tvec_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long expires = timer->expires;
> > > unsigned long idx = expires - base->timer_jiffies;
> > > @@ -372,6 +373,17 @@ static void internal_add_timer(struct tv
> > > list_add_tail(&timer->entry, vec);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void internal_add_timer(struct tvec_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
> > > +{
> > > + __internal_add_timer(base, timer);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Update base->next_timer if this is the earliest one.
> > > + */
> > > + if (time_before(timer->expires, base->next_timer) &&
> > > + !tbase_get_deferrable(timer->base))
> > > + base->next_timer = timer->expires;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >
> > Shouldn't this be like this?
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Update base->next_timer if this is the earliest one.
> > + */
> > + if (time_before(timer->expires, base->next_timer) &&
> > + !tbase_get_deferrable(timer->base))
> > + base->next_timer = timer->expires;
> > + __internal_add_timer(base, timer);
> >
> > As per the below code?
>
> And why should this matter?
>
Yes it does not matter, sorry for the noise.

Looking at the internal_add_timer(), there is no such dependency. I was
thinking that the base->next_timer is changed and would be used in
__internal_add_timer.

Nikunj





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-29 13:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site