Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758404Ab2FOWeJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:34:09 -0400 Received: from linux-sh.org ([111.68.239.195]:39198 "EHLO linux-sh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758274Ab2FOWeH (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:34:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:34:03 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Grant Likely Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irqdomain: Support one-shot tear down of domain mappings. Message-ID: <20120615223403.GB7357@linux-sh.org> References: <1339572841-26175-1-git-send-email-lethal@linux-sh.org> <1339572841-26175-2-git-send-email-lethal@linux-sh.org> <20120615183518.514853E0ACE@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120615183518.514853E0ACE@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2383 Lines: 70 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:35:18PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:34:01 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > +/** > > + * irq_domain_dispose_mappings() - Dispose of all mappings in a domain > > + * @domain: domain to tear down > > + */ > > +void irq_domain_dispose_mappings(struct irq_domain *domain) > > +{ > > + if (domain->revmap_type == IRQ_DOMAIN_MAP_NOMAP) > > + return; > > + > > + if (domain->linear_size) { > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < domain->linear_size; i++) > > + irq_dispose_mapping(domain->linear_revmap[i]); > > + } else { > > The 'else' should be dropped I think. With the merge of linear and > tree mappings into the same domain type, it is possible for a domain > to have both linear and tree mappings in the same instance. So tree > needs to be cleared even if linear_size is non-zero. > Ok, that's fine. Though by that same logic wouldn't it also be possible for a domain to have multiple linear ranges? > > + struct irq_data *irq_data_batch[IRQ_DOMAIN_BATCH_IRQS]; > > + unsigned int nr_found; > > + unsigned long index = 0; > > + > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > + > > + for (;;) { > > Nit; while not 'while(1)'? > Personal taste, though really it's probably better to just do a do { ... } while (nr_found == IRQ_DOMAIN_BATCH_IRQS), which will save an iteration when we've run out of tree. > > + int i; > > Nit; move 'i' up with nr_found above. > I prefer to have my variables defined in the scope in which they are used. Though obviously they'll be the same now with consolidation. > > + > > + nr_found = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&domain->radix_tree, > > + (void **)irq_data_batch, index, > > + ARRAY_SIZE(irq_data_batch)); > > + if (!nr_found) > > + break; > > Or better: > > while (nr_found = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&domain->radix_tree, > (void **)irq_data_batch, index, > ARRAY_SIZE(irq_data_batch))) { > That'll still loop even if nr_found returns less than the batch size (which only ocurred to me after I sent the patch), so the do { } while will at least save a superfluous lookup. I'll respin with the above rework. -- 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/