[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51363D37.1090107@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:45:11 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] ARM: smp: Remove local timer API
On 03/05/13 03:02, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>>> +
>>> +static void dummy_set_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
>>> + struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * Core clockevents code will call this when exchanging timer devices.
>>> + * We don't need to do anything here.
>>> + */
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void __cpuinit dummy_setup(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> + struct clock_event_device *evt = &per_cpu(dummy_evt, cpu);
>> Can we use __this_cpu_ptr()? I wonder if that makes the code generation
>> better or worse. I didn't do it in my 8/8 patch because I wanted the
>> code to be the same before and after to show code movement.
> I did that originally, but thought as I needed the cpu value for the mask
> anyway that there wasn't much point. I'm not that good at reading generated
> assembly, so I can't really say if either's better.
It looks to be two instructions shorter.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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