linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:34:09 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, jcm@...hat.com,
	helgaas@...nel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 04, 2016 11:01:05 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> >> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>> >> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
>> >> >> Is it a question?
>> >> >
>> >> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
>> >> > have fixed before submitting a patch.
>> >> >
>> >> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
>> >> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
>> >> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
>> >> significantly.
>> >
>> > That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable
>> > shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code.
>>
>> I'm not totally against that, but is the additional variable helpful here?
>
> Well, I guess you can argue both ways.
>
> Surely, the same result can be achieved with fewer lines of code if that's
> what you mean, so what about the following change on top of the $subject patch?
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Simplify acpi_penalize_isa_irq()
>
> acpi_penalize_isa_irq() can be written in fewer lines of code,
> so do that.  No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c |   14 +++-----------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -877,17 +877,9 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_updat
>   */
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>  {
> -       int penalty;
> -
> -       if (irq < 0)
> -               return;
> -
> -       if (active)
> -               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> -       else
> -               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -
> -       acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
> +       if (irq >= 0)
> +               acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, active ?
> +                       PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);

Works for me as well!

>  }
>
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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/