Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1299346 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 14:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> - 2015-12-30 20:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 21:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-01-01 01:20 +0100

#1299346 — Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

>>>>> +       if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>>>>>> +           polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>>>>> +               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>>>>> +       else
>>>>>> +               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);

>>>> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
>>>> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.

>>>> -               acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>> +              acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>>
>> I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing
>> the penalty variable.

> Is Chris' interpretation correct?

Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.

> BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
> have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.

Is it a question?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1299462

On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
> 
>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
> Is it a question?

It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
have fixed before submitting a patch.

I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not. 

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1299478

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
>>
>>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
>> Is it a question?
>
> It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
> have fixed before submitting a patch.
>
> I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.

Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
significantly.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1299808

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
> >>
> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
> >> Is it a question?
> >
> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
> > have fixed before submitting a patch.
> >
> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
> 
> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
> significantly.

That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable
shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web