Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:48:12 +0100 | From | Chris Redpath <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 7/7] net: don't check for active hrtimer after adding it |
| |
On 09/07/14 11:44, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On 9 July 2014 16:02, Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com> wrote: > >>> diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c >>> index fc17a9d..f911acd 100644 >>> --- a/net/core/pktgen.c >>> +++ b/net/core/pktgen.c >>> @@ -2186,8 +2186,6 @@ static void spin(struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev, ktime_t >>> spin_until) >>> do { >>> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >>> hrtimer_start_expires(&t.timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS); >>> - if (!hrtimer_active(&t.timer)) >>> - t.task = NULL; >>> >>> if (likely(t.task)) >>> schedule(); >> >> >> I think this if condition can also be removed. hrtimer_init_sleeper copies >> the supplied task_struct * to the timer, which in this case is 'current'. >> The check is likely to be there in case of !active case you removed. > > Yeah, it looks like we can get rid of this. Also, > > } while (t.task && pkt_dev->running && !signal_pending(current)); > > is present in the closing "}" of do-while loop and probably we > don't need to check t.task here as well. > > And this review comment applies to patch 2/7 as well: > hrtimer: don't check for active hrtimer after adding it > > I would still wait for somebody to prove us wrong :), and will resend > it next week only. > > Thanks. >
Yeah, no worries. I just happened to read it and not knowing any of the APIs had to look up what is going on.
BTW, I *will* get back to you about that broadcast stuff when I get back to it myself. Other priorities at the moment again.
--Chris
| |