[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0a896fef1aca8958a190801ab5355e22373081d.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 22:20:42 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@...ngson.cn>, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
kernel@...0n.name, tglx@...utronix.de, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
gaoliang@...ngson.cn, wangliupu@...ngson.cn, lvjianmin@...ngson.cn,
yijun@...ngson.cn, mhocko@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dianders@...omium.org, maobibo@...ngson.cn, zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn,
nathan@...nel.org, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn, zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn
Cc: loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Loongarch:Support loongarch avec
On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 20:59 +0800, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
> +static inline void loongarch_avec_ack_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline void loongarch_avec_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline void loongarch_avec_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +}
"inline" has no use here because these functions are only called via
function pointers, thus such calls cannot be inline-able. I'd suggest
to remove "inline" for them.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists