Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753708Ab2E2KgW (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2012 06:36:22 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:47722 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753653Ab2E2Kfy (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2012 06:35:54 -0400 From: Nikunj A Dadhania To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Gilad Ben-Yossef , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] timers: Consolidate base->next_timer update In-Reply-To: References: <20120525214617.051888729@linutronix.de> <20120525214819.189946224@linutronix.de> <87likbxzqe.fsf@abhimanyu.in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+70~gf0e0053 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.0.95.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:05:12 +0530 Message-ID: <87fwajxokf.fsf@abhimanyu.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain x-cbid: 12052900-7014-0000-0000-00000142A5A0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1814 Lines: 55 On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:27 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner 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 -- 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/