On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Paul Burton <paul.burton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 05:33:16PM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 01:10 -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> >> This patch removes a unneeded line from this file as stated by the
>> >> fix me in this file.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> arch/mips/kernel/smp-cmp.c | 2 --
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/smp-cmp.c b/arch/mips/kernel/smp-cmp.c
>> >> index fc8a515..61bfa20 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/smp-cmp.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/smp-cmp.c
>> >> @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ static void cmp_smp_finish(void)
>> >> {
>> >> pr_debug("SMPCMP: CPU%d: %s\n", smp_processor_id(), __func__);
>> >>
>> >> - /* CDFIXME: remove this? */
>> >> - write_c0_compare(read_c0_count() + (8 * mips_hpt_frequency / HZ));
>> >
>> > That comment ends in a question mark. I wonder why...
>> >
>> >> #ifdef CONFIG_MIPS_MT_FPAFF
>> >> /* If we have an FPU, enroll ourselves in the FPU-full mask */
>> >
>> >
>> > Paul Bolle
>> >
>> If we need it then can I remove the FIx me comment.
>> Cheers Nick
>
> That depends: have you verified that we do need it?
>
> I wouldn't feel comfortable with removing either line without someone
> first explaining why it isn't necessary and testing the result on a
> number of different systems, with varying combinations of csrc-r4k &
> cevt-r4k.
>
> I absolutely agree that removing unnecessary code or outdated comments
> are both good things, but let's be sure they're unnecessary or outdated
> first. Your patch does not make me confident that you've checked either
> of those.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
I don't have this hardware , however if we can find people to test
this it would be great.
Cheers Nick
