From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:47:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with __this_cpu_*() In-Reply-To: <20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.home> References: <20150316173154.537b80ee@gandalf.local.home> <20150317081341.0f9a8b4c@gandalf.local.home> <20150317101113.32f5618a@gandalf.local.home> <20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: <20150317144701.GJ10068@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Guten Morgen Steven, On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:40:38AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > static __always_inline void trace_recursive_unlock(void) > { > - unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context); > + unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context); > + unsigned int val2; > > - val--; > - val &= this_cpu_read(current_context); > - this_cpu_write(current_context, val); > + val2 = val - 1; > + val &= val2; > + __this_cpu_write(current_context, val); You could use: unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context); val = val & (val - 1); __this_cpu_write(current_context, val); and save a few lines and still make it more readable (IMHO). BTW, this patch makes the additional lines in the trace disappear, so if you think that makes a Tested-by applicable, feel free to add it. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |