[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1394985929-24969-1-git-send-email-palmer@dabbelt.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:05:29 -0700
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mcs_spin_lock() is inline, but comment says it isn't
I was reading the mcs_spinlock code today and I noticed a comment that
didn't appear to match the code. This appears to have just been an
oversight during some restructuring of the mcs_spinlock code where
this function was made inline but the comment wasn't updated.
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
---
kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
index a2dbac4..f4e94af 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
@@ -56,9 +56,6 @@ do { \
* If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
* on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
* in mcs_spin_unlock().
- *
- * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
- * time spent in this lock function.
*/
static inline
void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
--
1.8.3.2
--
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