[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181219162836.GA9224@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:28:36 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] irqchip: sifive-plic: More flexible
plic_irq_toggle()
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 02:20:10PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> Actually these functions should not be inline because plic_toggle() uses
> raw_spin_lock() and plic_irq_toggle() uses for-loop.
So? It still inlines the all of two instances into each caller
for slightly different but related work. Not sure it is 100% worth
it, but probably more than the one to move the calculations to init
time..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists