From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753924AbdKMQyj (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:54:39 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:34198 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753743AbdKMQyi (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:54:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:54:34 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Zhenzhong Duan cc: mingo@kernel.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, Srinivas REDDY Eeda , Joe Jin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/broadcast: Remove redundant code in tick_check_new_device() In-Reply-To: <35b094f6-70e0-49f2-803a-3333d7ee2524@default> Message-ID: References: <35b094f6-70e0-49f2-803a-3333d7ee2524@default> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Zhenzhong Duan wrote: > There is no way a timer used as broadcast clockevent device is also used as > percpu tick clockevent device currently. Correct. > It's better to put related code in tick_install_broadcast_device(), but I feel > it's harmless to give it back to the clockevents layer. Pls correct me if I'm > wrong. You already established, that it _cannot_ be the broadcast device and the per cpu device at the same time. So that condition can never be true. What do you want to put into tick_install_broadcast_device()? This second paragraph doesn't make sense, unless I'm missing something. Thanks, tglx