Re: [PATCH] SMP signal latency fix up.

[Mark Gross <mgross@linux.co.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 15:26, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Mark Gross wrote:
> 
> > diff -urN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.0-test9/kernel/sched.c /opt/linux-2.6.0-test9/kernel/sched.c
> > --- linux-2.6.0-test9/kernel/sched.c    2003-10-25 11:44:29.000000000 -0700
> > +++ /opt/linux-2.6.0-test9/kernel/sched.c       2003-11-06 13:04:03.628116240 -0800
> > @@ -626,13 +626,13 @@
> >                         }
> >                         success = 1;
> >                 }
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > -               else
> > -                       if (unlikely(kick) && task_running(rq, p) && (task_cpu(p) != smp_processor_id()))
> > -                               smp_send_reschedule(task_cpu(p));
> > -#endif
> >                 p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> >         }
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +               else
> > +               if (unlikely(kick) && task_running(rq, p) && (task_cpu(p) != smp_processor_id()))
> > +                       smp_send_reschedule(task_cpu(p));
> > +#endif
> >         task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
> 
> Without any comment as to whether or not the patch would work, shouldn't 
> the "else" be moved back by a tab?
> 

You are correct.  
The source file used ot build the patch "looked" correct but had some
spaces where intermixed, that didn't show up until the tabs got expanded
by the cut and paste into the mailer.

I can re-send if you like, but I have a feeling Linux and Ingo are going
to work something slightly different out.  So I'll hold off.

Sorry about that.

--mgross