[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701061537360.22558@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:38:18 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>
cc: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc3] TTY_IO code cleanups
On Jan 5 2007 16:00, David Rientjes wrote:
>> @@ -791,17 +790,15 @@ static int tty_ldisc_try(struct tty_struct *tty)
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> struct tty_ldisc *ld;
>> - int ret = 0;
>>
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&tty_ldisc_lock, flags);
>> ld = &tty->ldisc;
>> - if(test_bit(TTY_LDISC, &tty->flags))
>> - {
>> + if(test_bit(TTY_LDISC, &tty->flags)) {
>> ld->refcount++;
>> - ret = 1;
>> + return 1;
>> }
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty_ldisc_lock, flags);
>> - return ret;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>
>You leave tty_ldisk_lock locked.
Hence it was not redundant. Either way,
if(test_bit(...)) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(..)
return 1;
}
would probably generate the same ASM as the original, hence it is not
really an improvement.
-`J'
--
-
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