From 8ac3549db324367d331b779676212c0a0e3cea7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Huber Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:13:49 +0100 Subject: score: Delete unused CPU_UNROLL_ENQUEUE_PRIORITY --- cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score/cpu.h | 23 ----------------------- 1 file changed, 23 deletions(-) (limited to 'cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score') diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score/cpu.h b/cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score/cpu.h index 0b728e7a1c..52fb3f8a5e 100644 --- a/cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score/cpu.h +++ b/cpukit/score/cpu/bfin/rtems/score/cpu.h @@ -53,29 +53,6 @@ extern "C" { */ #define CPU_INLINE_ENABLE_DISPATCH FALSE -/** - * Should the body of the search loops in _Thread_queue_Enqueue_priority - * be unrolled one time? In unrolled each iteration of the loop examines - * two "nodes" on the chain being searched. Otherwise, only one node - * is examined per iteration. - * - * If TRUE, then the loops are unrolled. - * If FALSE, then the loops are not unrolled. - * - * The primary factor in making this decision is the cost of disabling - * and enabling interrupts (_ISR_Flash) versus the cost of rest of the - * body of the loop. On some CPUs, the flash is more expensive than - * one iteration of the loop body. In this case, it might be desirable - * to unroll the loop. It is important to note that on some CPUs, this - * code is the longest interrupt disable period in RTEMS. So it is - * necessary to strike a balance when setting this parameter. - * - * Port Specific Information: - * - * XXX document implementation including references if appropriate - */ -#define CPU_UNROLL_ENQUEUE_PRIORITY TRUE - /** * Does RTEMS manage a dedicated interrupt stack in software? * -- cgit v1.2.3