[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b56d3fcdc21abee9d394b8045413ed032d85abf2.1396006658.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:11:31 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, linaro-networking@...aro.org,
Arvind.Chauhan@....com, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 12/16] hrtimer: rewrite switch_hrtimer_base() to remove extra indentation level
Complete bottom part of switch_hrtimer_base() is part of a 'if' block and so all
code present in that block has extra indentation level before it. Rewrite it to
remove this extra indentation level.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
kernel/hrtimer.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c
index 04f8e44..30efa1c 100644
--- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
@@ -203,33 +203,33 @@ again:
new_cpu_base = &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, cpu);
new_base = &new_cpu_base->clock_base[base->index];
- if (base != new_base) {
- /*
- * We are trying to move timer to new_base.
- * However we can't change timer's base while it is running,
- * so we keep it on the same CPU. No hassle vs. reprogramming
- * the event source in the high resolution case. The softirq
- * code will take care of this when the timer function has
- * completed. There is no conflict as we hold the lock until
- * the timer is enqueued.
- */
- if (unlikely(hrtimer_callback_running(timer)))
- return;
+ if (base == new_base)
+ return;
- /* See the comment in lock_timer_base() */
- timer->base = NULL;
- raw_spin_unlock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
- raw_spin_lock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);
+ /*
+ * We are trying to move timer to new_base. However we can't change
+ * timer's base while it is running, so we keep it on the same CPU. No
+ * hassle vs. reprogramming the event source in the high resolution
+ * case. The softirq code will take care of this when the timer function
+ * has completed. There is no conflict as we hold the lock until the
+ * timer is enqueued.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(hrtimer_callback_running(timer)))
+ return;
- if (cpu != this_cpu && hrtimer_check_target(timer, new_base)) {
- cpu = this_cpu;
- raw_spin_unlock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);
- raw_spin_lock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
- timer->base = base;
- goto again;
- }
- timer->base = new_base;
+ /* See the comment in lock_timer_base() */
+ timer->base = NULL;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);
+
+ if (cpu != this_cpu && hrtimer_check_target(timer, new_base)) {
+ cpu = this_cpu;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
+ timer->base = base;
+ goto again;
}
+ timer->base = new_base;
}
#else /* CONFIG_SMP */
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
--
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