[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190115155437.GA13095@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:54:37 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: 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>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] irqchip: sifive-plic: Don't inline plic_toggle()
and plic_irq_toggle()
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:48:18PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> The plic_toggle() uses raw_spin_lock() and plic_irq_toggle has a
> for loop so both these functions are not suitable for being inline
> hence this patch removes the inline keyword.
That is a weird argument for a function which has by design exactly
two callers and is in the hot path. The alternative to the inline
here would be to duplicate the code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists