Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/15] rcu: RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK code no longerever dead

[Josh Triplett]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Before RCU had unified idle, the RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK leg of the switch
> statement in force_quiescent_state() was dead code for CONFIG_NO_HZ=n
> kernel builds.  With unified idle, the code is never dead.  This commit
> therefore removes the "if" statement designed to make gcc aware of when
> the code was and was not dead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

One comment below; with that change:

Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  kernel/rcutree.c |    2 --
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 75ad92a..0b0c9cc 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -1744,8 +1744,6 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
>  		break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */
>  
>  	case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK:
> -		if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT != RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK)
> -			break; /* So gcc recognizes the dead code. */
>  
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);  /* irqs remain disabled */

Drop the blank line too?
--
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/