On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:55:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:41:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> > > is unde
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:41:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> > is under #ifdef of that same.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> is under #ifdef of that same.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Right you are! It got moved under that #ifdef in the process of merging
the RCU
I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
is under #ifdef of that same.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 4f7369d54de0..dd2646e56456 100644
4 matches
Mail list logo