[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504221642590.13914@nanos>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:44:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@...panasonic.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"H. Peter Alvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Aaron Sierra <asierra@...-inc.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 V2] time: allow gcc to fold constants when using
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > +extern unsigned long __msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m);
> > > +#if HZ <= MSEC_PER_SEC && !(MSEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
> > > +static inline unsigned long _msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m)
> > > +{
> >
> > This should move the comments explaining the logic for each variant as
> > well.
>
> should be covered by [PATCH 3/3 V2] time: update msecs_to_jiffies doc and move to kernel-doc
Well, it's covered but it makes no sense patch wise.
> > 1) Factor out the code into inline helpers w/o adding anything
> >
> > 2) Add the __builtin_constant_p() check
> >
>
> so basically 1) is refactoring only and 2) is the actual
> change keept at a minimum or what is the intent of this split ?
Right.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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