From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262924AbVHEJeV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 05:34:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262931AbVHEJeV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 05:34:21 -0400 Received: from mail20.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.201]:31362 "EHLO mail20.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262924AbVHEJeU (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 05:34:20 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove i386 dynamic ticks ifdefs Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:26:52 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: tony@atomide.com, linux kernel mailing list References: <200507291206.46261.kernel@kolivas.org> <20020101103339.GC467@openzaurus.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20020101103339.GC467@openzaurus.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508051926.52977.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > I assume you're maintaining the dyn tick patches for i386 posted on the > > muru website as your email is listed there. I thought you might be > > interested in this patch for dyn-ticks which removes most of the #ifdefs > > out of common code paths as per linux kernel style and moves more code > > into dyn-tick.c. Most of it is straight forward code reorganisation, but > > to keep do_timer_interrupt inlined I'd have to move it's code around > > somewhat. That may be a better option but I've tried to fiddle with the > > mainline code as little as possible. > > > > Patch applies to 2.6.12 with patch-dynamic-tick-2.6.12-rc6-050610-1 > > applied > > > > cc'ed lkml just for public record of the patch. > > Please inline patches... Not everyone uses console email clients :| It was an inlined attachment rather than an ordinary attachment but clearly that doesn't suit those with console clients. I'm sorry. > > You broke indentation in one of first hunks, and you probably > want empty functions to be static inline, so that we do not eat > function call overhead. Will examine. Thanks very much for your code comments! Cheers, Con