[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190819143803.190250202@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:32:00 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [patch 19/44] posix-cpu-timer: Remove pointless return value check
set_process_cpu_timer() checks already whether the clock id is valid. No
point in checking the return value of the sample function. That allows to
simplify the sample function later.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -1204,14 +1204,13 @@ void set_process_cpu_timer(struct task_s
u64 *newval, u64 *oldval)
{
u64 now;
- int ret;
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(clock_idx >= CPUCLOCK_SCHED))
return;
- ret = cpu_clock_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now, true);
+ cpu_clock_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now, true);
- if (oldval && ret != -EINVAL) {
+ if (oldval) {
/*
* We are setting itimer. The *oldval is absolute and we update
* it to be relative, *newval argument is relative and we update
Powered by blists - more mailing lists