Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:09:25 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] irqchip: sifive-plic: Don't inline plic_toggle()
 and plic_irq_toggle()
Message-ID: <20190212070925.GE26747@infradead.org>
References: <20190119055625.100054-1-anup@brainfault.org>
 <20190119055625.100054-3-anup@brainfault.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190119055625.100054-3-anup@brainfault.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:26:22AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> The plic_toggle() uses raw_spin_lock() and plic_irq_toggle has a
> for loop so both these functions are not suitable for being inline
> hence this patch removes the inline keyword.

I still very much disagree.  Very strongly with the above rationale,
but also (less strongly) with the decision not to inline here.