Looks ok to me.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:21 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> The goto label was directly after the loop, so we can replace the goto
> with a break.
>
> Close #4847.
> ---
> cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c
> b/cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c
> index b2426fa8ac..ad4c1aca3e 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c
> +++ b/cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c
> @@ -301,12 +301,13 @@ void _Thread_Do_dispatch( Per_CPU_Control *cpu_self,
> ISR_Level level )
> heir = _Thread_Get_heir_and_make_it_executing( cpu_self );
>
> /*
> - * When the heir and executing are the same, then we are being
> - * requested to do the post switch dispatching. This is normally
> - * done to dispatch signals.
> + * If the heir and executing are the same, then there is no need to
> do a
> + * context switch. Proceed to run the post switch actions. This is
> + * normally done to dispatch signals.
> */
> - if ( heir == executing )
> - goto post_switch;
> + if ( heir == executing ) {
> + break;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Since heir and executing are not the same, we need to do a real
> @@ -341,7 +342,11 @@ void _Thread_Do_dispatch( Per_CPU_Control *cpu_self,
> ISR_Level level )
> _ISR_Local_disable( level );
> } while ( cpu_self->dispatch_necessary );
>
> -post_switch:
> + /*
> + * We are done with context switching. Proceed to run the post switch
> + * actions.
> + */
> +
> _Assert( cpu_self->thread_dispatch_disable_level == 1 );
> cpu_self->thread_dispatch_disable_level = 0;
> _Profiling_Thread_dispatch_enable( cpu_self, 0 );
> --
> 2.35.3
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
