[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b38caf8e-b817-7ea2-50e3-eef78909b642@loongson.cn>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 14:41:45 +0800
From: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@...ngson.cn>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>, 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
在 2024/5/7 下午10:20, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
> 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.
>
Thank you for your feedback. I will make the necessary changes here
Powered by blists - more mailing lists