[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081225160109.GA5636@localhost>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:01:09 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for -tip] irq: for_each_irq_desc() makes simplify
[KOSAKI Motohiro - Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:43:45PM +0900]
| > | "if (!desc) " mean this irqno don't have irq description.
| > | so I think this name imply mean skipping no irq desctiption element.
| > |
| > | Actually, on CONFIG_SPARSEIRQ, desc is filled in dynamically after booting.
| > | then "defined" is a bit misleading word.
| > |
| >
| > So if I would need to iterate over all descriptors including empty
| > I need to type all this long for(;;) form again?
|
| We already have for_each_irq_nr() for this purpose ;-)
Which is not shorter form of desc iterator in turn :-)
Since the original for_each_irq_desc didn't check for NULL
desc's I think the better would to name it like for_each_irq_desc_safe
or for_each_irq_desc_inuse then.
Nevermind, Kosaki, since it's only me who is confused I should
just shut up :-)
|
| > For me for_each_irq_desc
| > implies to iterate over each irq_desc allocated regardles of internal
| > descriptor data. For example in list_struct we have a special test if
| > entry is empty or not. So I think hiding details is not that good (and
| > that is why I was asking for more descriptive macro name). BUT if it
| > really supposed to behave like that then I don't object :)
|
- Cyrill -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists