[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607141131390.27161@turbotaz.ourhouse>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:32:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from nmi.c
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c b/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c
> index 2dd928a..eb8bbbb 100644
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c
> +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> */
> static __init void nmi_cpu_busy(void *data)
> {
> - volatile int *endflag = data;
> + int *endflag = data;
> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
> /* Intentionally don't use cpu_relax here. This is
> to make sure that the performance counter really ticks,
> @@ -121,10 +121,14 @@ #endif
>
> static int __init check_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> - volatile int endflag = 0;
> + static int endflag = 0;
Now that this is static, isn't this a candidate for __initdata?
> unsigned int *prev_nmi_count;
> int cpu;
>
> + /* Have we done this already? */
> + if (endflag)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (nmi_watchdog == NMI_NONE)
> return 0;
>
Thanks,
Chase
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists