Re: [PATCH 9/9] trace: Replace hardcoding of 19 with MAX_NICE.

[Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Hi Peter.
     It seems the all other patches in this set were all applied to tip 
except this one.
What is the problem with the [9/9]? Is there any thing I can do?

Thanx


On 02/11/2014 03:34 PM, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> ---
>   kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> index a5457d5..0434ff1 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ static int write_iteration = 50;
>   module_param(write_iteration, uint, 0644);
>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(write_iteration, "# of writes between timestamp readings");
>   
> -static int producer_nice = 19;
> -static int consumer_nice = 19;
> +static int producer_nice = MAX_NICE;
> +static int consumer_nice = MAX_NICE;
>   
>   static int producer_fifo = -1;
>   static int consumer_fifo = -1;
> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static void ring_buffer_producer(void)
>   
>   	/* Let the user know that the test is running at low priority */
>   	if (producer_fifo < 0 && consumer_fifo < 0 &&
> -	    producer_nice == 19 && consumer_nice == 19)
> +	    producer_nice == MAX_NICE && consumer_nice == MAX_NICE)
>   		trace_printk("WARNING!!! This test is running at lowest priority.\n");
>   
>   	trace_printk("Time:     %lld (usecs)\n", time);