[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectalternate high-res-timers patch comments (II)


Here are more comments/questions on Jim's alternate high-res-timers
patch. Some of this is just to understand the code.

a. Why return here and skip profiling?
Is this an intermediate (high-res) timer interrupt that shouldn't be
used for profiling?

inline void smp_local_timer_interrupt(struct pt_regs * regs)
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ if (!run_posix_timers((void *)regs))
+ return;


b. In kernel/id2ptr.c,

<id_free_cnt>: change cnt to count; just a style thing.
Linux doesn't use many abbreviations, which makes it easier on
everyone not having to remember "what is the abbreviation that code
uses for <whatever>?".

sub_alloc() is recursive. How bounded is it? 32 calls max?
I'm not totally against recursion, but it needs to be *well-bounded*.

Same for sub_remove().


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.053 / U:1.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site