john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> writes:
> + do {
> + seq = read_seqbegin(&xtime_lock);
> + ret = timer->monotonic_clock();
> + } while (read_seqretry(&xtime_lock, seq));
Why does it need to check xtime lock ? xtime should be independent
of the monotonic time because it can be changed.
Also doing seqlocks around hardware register reads is quite nasty,
because a hardware register read can be hundreds of cycles and you're
very likely to get retries. If you really need a seqlock I would
move it into the low level function and do it after the hardware access.
But as far as I can see it can be just removed.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:33 EST