[PATCH] rcu: don't set ->next_pending in rcu_start_batch()

I think it is better to set ->next_pending in the caller, when
it is needed. This saves one parameter, and this coincides with
cpu_quiet() beahaviour, which sets ->completed = ->cur itself.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index ccc45d4..05ee483 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -236,12 +236,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
  * active batch and the batch to be registered has not already occurred.
  * Caller must hold rcu_state.lock.
  */
-static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp,
-                               int next_pending)
+static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp)
 {
-       if (next_pending)
-               rcp->next_pending = 1;
-
        if (rcp->next_pending &&
                        rcp->completed == rcp->cur) {
                rcp->next_pending = 0;
@@ -275,7 +271,7 @@ static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp)
        if (cpus_empty(rsp->cpumask)) {
                /* batch completed ! */
                rcp->completed = rcp->cur;
-               rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 0);
+               rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
        }
 }
 
@@ -410,7 +406,8 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp,
                if (!rcp->next_pending) {
                        /* and start it/schedule start if it's a new batch */
                        spin_lock(&rsp->lock);
-                       rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 1);
+                       rcp->next_pending = 1;
+                       rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
                        spin_unlock(&rsp->lock);
                }
        } else {