On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:17:11PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/18/12 04:06, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > index f113755..c2dd022 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > @@ -125,6 +125,21 @@ int tick_device_uses_broadcast(struct
> > clock_event_device *dev, int cpu)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +int tick_receive_broadcast(void)
> > +{
> > + struct tick_device *td = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_device);
> > + struct clock_event_device *evt = td->evtdev;
> > +
> > + if (!evt)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + if (!evt->event_handler)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
>
> Does this actually happen? It's not obvious to me how it does.
Taking a look at it, I don't think it does. Any tick_device's
clock_event_device should have an event_handler. I'll drop this check.
A tick device might not have a clock_event_device registered in some cases --
the x86 lapic timer has to deal with interrupts pending across a kexec, where
interrupts are enabled before local timers are registered. I'm not sure how
common this problem might be though, and whether it should be dealt with here
or elsewhere.
> > + evt->event_handler(evt);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Broadcast the event to the cpus, which are set in the mask (mangled).
> > */
>
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
