[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy1JpFfxPmuLM_T_YVax9HD2oNbfwMAwttNYjZ+BSL4fuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:56:53 +0530
From: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] irqchip: sifive-plic: Implement irq_set_affinity()
for SMP host
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > + if (!force)
> > + cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
> > + else
> > + cpu = cpumask_first(mask_val);
>
> Any reason for the inverted test?
Okay, I will not use inverted test here.
>
> Otherwise this looks fine to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Thanks,
Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists