[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xeu7wzx.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:29:06 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Saurabh Sengar
<ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>, Shradha Gupta
<shradhagupta@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...ei.com>, Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, Jason
Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Yixun Lan
<dlan@...too.org>, Longbin Li <looong.bin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] PCI/MSI: Add startup/shutdown support for per
device MSI[X] domains
On Fri, Aug 08 2025 at 07:18, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 11:25:21AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> >
>> > +static __always_inline void cond_shutdown_parent(struct irq_data *data)
>>
>> Is there a functional reason why we need __always_inline?
>>
> I am not sure for this. As I found other cond_[mask/unmask]_parent()
> also have this attribute, I added this as well.
>
>> If not, it seems like this annotation is just clutter, and the compiler
>> will probably inline it all by itself.
Most of the time, but yes in this case it's irrelevant.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists