lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Dynamic tick for x86 version 050602-2
    * Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> [050610 02:15]:
    > Hi!
    >
    > > > > +#define NS_TICK_LEN ((1 * 1000000000)/HZ)
    > > > > +#define DYN_TICK_MIN_SKIP 2
    > > > > +
    > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ
    > > > > +
    > > > > +extern unsigned long dyn_tick_reprogram_timer(void);
    > > > > +
    > > > > +#else
    > > > > +
    > > > > +#define arch_has_safe_halt() 0
    > > > > +#define dyn_tick_reprogram_timer() {}
    > > >
    > > > do {} while (0)
    > > >
    > > > , else you are preparing trap for someone.
    > >
    > > Can you please explain what the difference between these two are?
    > > Some compiler version specific thing?
    >
    > It took me quite some remembering. Problem is that with your macros,
    > someone can write
    >
    > dyn_tick_reprogram_timer()
    > printk();
    >
    > [notice missing ; at first line], and still get it compile. If you
    > replace {} with do {} while (0), he'll get compile error as he should.

    Thanks for clarifying, I'll change it.

    Tony
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-06-10 17:20    [W:0.021 / U:60.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site