[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87seyurfk7.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 19:55:04 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: ruanjinjie@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Simplify the check for __irq_get_desc_lock()
On Mon, May 06 2024 at 20:50, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> If it set "_IRQ_DESC_PERCPU" in "check" but the desc is not percpu, or if
> the desc is percpu but it not set "_IRQ_DESC_PERCPU" in "check", it both
> return NULL, so simplify the check in __irq_get_desc_lock() with "!=".
What is exactly simplified here?
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/irq/irqdesc.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c b/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
> index 88ac3652fcf2..6c52deb134b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
> @@ -882,11 +882,7 @@ __irq_get_desc_lock(unsigned int irq, unsigned long *flags, bool bus,
>
> if (desc) {
> if (check & _IRQ_DESC_CHECK) {
> - if ((check & _IRQ_DESC_PERCPU) &&
> - !irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(desc))
> - return NULL;
> -
> - if (!(check & _IRQ_DESC_PERCPU) &&
> + if (!!(check & _IRQ_DESC_PERCPU) !=
> irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(desc))
> return NULL;
The existing code is readable and obvious. This is not.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists