[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1155092218.13030.107.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:56:58 -0700
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] x86_64: Enable arch-generic vsyscall support.
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 04:29 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> > index b650f04..08b4a02 100644
> > --- a/kernel/timer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> > @@ -1023,6 +1023,12 @@ static int __init timekeeping_init_devic
> >
> > device_initcall(timekeeping_init_device);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL
> > +extern void update_vsyscall(struct timespec* ts, struct clocksource* c);
> > +#else
> > +#define update_vsyscall(now, c)
> > +#endif
>
> Using a weak dummy function would be a bit cleaner.
Will compilers optimize out the call properly?
Looking at it now, it probably should go in a .h file and the empty
define should be a proper "do { } while(0)"
thanks
-john
-
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