[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140115234108.GL10038@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:41:08 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/timers 3/4] timers: Reduce future __run_timers()
latency for newly emptied list
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:54:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:20:47 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> > index 295837e5e011..bdd1c00ec4ec 100644
> > --- a/kernel/timer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> > @@ -700,6 +700,7 @@ static int detach_if_pending(struct timer_list *timer, struct tvec_base *base,
> > base->next_timer = base->timer_jiffies;
> > }
> > base->all_timers--;
> > + (void)catchup_timer_jiffies(base);
>
> Why the "(void)" ?
Just a way of saying "I really did intend to ignore the return value."
Thanx, Paul
> -- Steve
>
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
>
--
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