On 02/14/2014 08:46 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 02/14/2014 06:16 PM, Carsten Emde wrote:
you submitted a patch of a patch - it's not funny and very difficult to read.
I allowed myself to transform it to a normal separate patch on top of the one
that you patched. It can be merged lateron.
Isn't this better? (We always did it this way.)
Yes, we always did that way. This time it is different.
I received 20 patches from Nicholas dealing with checkpatch issues. It
contained code changes like fixes of white space and other changes that
fall into the category cosmetic - code change at all. Others change the
body of the patch because checkpatch did not like a twice the same
person in a signed-of-by line or Toasted-by was not a valid tag and so
on.
I did not want any of this patches to extend unnecessary the -RT queue
so I want them merged right in the first patch where the problem occurs.
I also did not want to deal with fallout when I merge the
patches back into the original and a following patch does no longer
apply. So I asked Nicholas do it this way.
This patch did a little more because it replaced NR_CPUS with something
else and therefore I considered it important enough to send it to the
mailing list. The other will be mentioned in the announcement email
will be part of the incremental patch.
Ok.
@@ -161,11 +161,11 @@ void notrace latency_hist(int latency_ty
{
struct hist_data *my_hist;
#if defined(CONFIG_WAKEUP_LATENCY_HIST) || \
- defined(CONFIG_MISSED_TIMER_OFFSETS_HIST)
+ defined(CONFIG_MISSED_TIMER_OFFSETS_HIST)
struct maxlatproc_data *mp = NULL;
#endif
- if (cpu < 0 || cpu >= NR_CPUS || latency_type < 0 ||
+ if (!cpu_possible(cpu) || latency_type < 0 ||
latency_type >= MAX_LATENCY_TYPE)
return;
Acked-by: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
