On 01/26/2015 12:03 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> On 26/01/15 11:47, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 01/26/2015 11:36 AM, James Hogan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> + raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++; \
>>>
>>> not "if (!raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++)) {"?
>> Why?
>>
>> on _stop() calls you just increment it. The _start() will do the right
>> thing then.
>>
>> I think what you suggest it to move the if() condition from the _start()
>> to _stop().
>
> I just mean you only need to disable htw the first time its called. I
> guess the extra branch every time could be worse than the extra disable
> and ehb when nesting does occur, so its probably premature optimisation.
>
> Up to you.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
good idea i will change it.
--
markos
