[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190212070925.GE26747@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:09:25 -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 v5 2/5] irqchip: sifive-plic: Don't inline plic_toggle()
and plic_irq_toggle()
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:26:22AM +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.
I still very much disagree. Very strongly with the above rationale,
but also (less strongly) with the decision not to inline here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists