Re: [PATCH 22/38] tick-sched: no need to recheck cpu_online() in can_stop_idle_tick()

2014-04-14 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 15 April 2014 01:22, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 04/14/14 09:23, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> We have already checked if 'cpu' is online or not and so don't need to >> recheck >> it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > Hm... doing some git archeology shows fa116ea35ec7 (nohz: no softirq > pending wa

Re: [PATCH 22/38] tick-sched: no need to recheck cpu_online() in can_stop_idle_tick()

2014-04-14 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 04/14/14 09:23, Viresh Kumar wrote: > We have already checked if 'cpu' is online or not and so don't need to recheck > it. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Hm... doing some git archeology shows fa116ea35ec7 (nohz: no softirq pending warnings for offline cpus, 2008-12-11), where the cpu_online()

[PATCH 22/38] tick-sched: no need to recheck cpu_online() in can_stop_idle_tick()

2014-04-14 Thread Viresh Kumar
We have already checked if 'cpu' is online or not and so don't need to recheck it. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar --- kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c index 9cbba513..c81b6cf 100644 --- a