On 2014/9/18 4:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 2014/9/17 1:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
>>>> +void irq_chip_ack_parent(struct irq_data *data)
>>>> +{
>>>> + data = data->parent_data;
>>>> + if (data && data->chip && data->chip->irq_ack)
>>>> + data->chip->irq_ack(data);
>>>
>>> Why is this restricted to a single parent level and does not go down
>>> the whole stack?
>> Hi Thomas,
>> It happens to work on x86, and we want to achieve a bit
>> performance advantage by not walking down the whole stack.
>> If preferred, I will change it to walk the whole stack.
>
> Happens to work on my machine is always a bad argument :)
>
> Now, I can see why you want to do that, but if we do an optimization
> like that then we should really get rid of the conditional.
>
> You surely need a conditional on data->chip and data->chip->callback
> for a full stackq walk, but for an explicit request to use the parents
> ack the parent better has a chip with an ack function, right?
>
> void irq_chip_ack_parent(struct irq_data *data)
> {
> data = data->parent_data;
> data->chip->irq_ack(data);
> }
Sure, will optimize it further as above code.
Regards!
Gerry
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
