On 04/05/2016 12:52 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.03.16 at 15:44, <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> -static s_time_t read_platform_stime(void)
>> +static s_time_t read_platform_stime(u64 *stamp)
>> {
>> - u64 count;
>> + u64 plt_stamp_counter, count;
>
> "stamp" and "counter" seem kind of redundant.
>
A bit, perhaps you prefer the latter? There was a variable named "count", so I
named "stamp" for clearer distinction between the variables and the output arg.
>> s_time_t stime;
>>
>> ASSERT(!local_irq_is_enabled());
>>
>> spin_lock(&platform_timer_lock);
>> - count = plt_stamp64 + ((plt_src.read_counter() - plt_stamp) & plt_mask);
>> + plt_stamp_counter = plt_src.read_counter();
>> + count = plt_stamp64 + ((plt_stamp_counter - plt_stamp) & plt_mask);
>> stime = __read_platform_stime(count);
>> + if ( stamp )
>> + *stamp = plt_stamp_counter;
>> spin_unlock(&platform_timer_lock);
>
> What reason is there to do that conditional write inside the locked
> region?
>
None, I should move this conditional write out of this region.
Joao
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
