Re: [PATCH] softirq_pending()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:58:41AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> The problem is that, on some of the platforms that don't ignore
> the argument, the code generation is much better.
> 
> GCC doesn't consider smp_processor_id() like some const local
> variable, so multiple invocations are assumed to return different
> values because in many cases 'current_thread_info()' is obscured.
> 
> Your patch is going to make a lot of new code get generated on
> x86 for example, so I don't think it should be applied even though
> my own platforms are not effected by this issue.

Okay, thanks forthe explanation.  I don't think it matters in this
case because there's exactly one case where we pass an variable into
softirq_pending() instead of a direct, uncached smp_processor_id() -
and that is in arch/cris/ which is UP only.

I'll try to remember the hint so I know what do to this pops up
the next time, though :)
-
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/