Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the review firstly.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:19:18AM +0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aish...@linaro.org>
> >
> > There're two copies of irq_desc initialization code, reform them into
> > an irq_desc_initialize function to call.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aish...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/irq/irqdesc.c | 51
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> We add more code by removing redundant copies?
>
I also had this strange question.
I looked the code a bit more, i guess the main problem is that the redundant
copies
is not too big, so we can not see great savings.
Compare to the init code of irq_desc in original alloc_desc function,
the new irq_desc_initialize function saves 4 lines.
However, the new function also add 4 lines for defining extra function name,
parameter and etc.
And alloc_desc still needs to call irq_desc_initialize and checking return value
which needs extra 6 lines.
The main saving is another copy of irq_desc initialization in early_irq_init,
but this copy does not check any return values which cause we did not save too
much,
only about 4 lines.
Plus extra blan lines added, so totally it does not save more than new added.
However, i was thinking it could make code looks a bit better.
So i sent out this RFC patch.
Do you think if it's reasonable?
BTW, there's an issue in my patch, should change like:
if (alloc_masks(desc, GFP_KERNEL, node)) {
- kfree(desc->kstat_irqs);
+ free_percpu(desc->kstat_irqs);
return -ENOMEM;
}
Regards
Dong Aisheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
