Re: [Patch 1/8] Setup

[Balbir Singh]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:23:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void delayacct_end(struct timespec *start, struct timespec *end,
> > +				u64 *total, u32 *count)
> > +{
> > +	struct timespec ts = {0, 0};
> > +	s64 ns;
> > +
> > +	do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(end);
> > +	timespec_sub(&ts, start, end);
> > +	ns = timespec_to_ns(&ts);
> > +	if (ns < 0)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&current->delays->lock);
> > +	*total += ns;
> > +	(*count)++;
> > +	spin_unlock(&current->delays->lock);
> > +}
> 
> - too large to be inlined

I will un-inline it.

> 
> - The initialisation of `ts' is unneeded (maybe it generated a bogus
>   warning, but it won't do that if you switch timespec_sub to
>   return-by-value)

gcc-4.1 does generate a bogus warning. I will switch to return by value
and remove the initialization of `ts'


	Thanks,
	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/