linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: arch/mips/au1000/common/irq.c

To: baitisj@evolution.com
Subject: Re: arch/mips/au1000/common/irq.c
From: Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com>
Date: 13 Mar 2003 10:59:51 -0800
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20030313104704.V20129@luca.pas.lab>
Organization: MontaVista Software
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030313104704.V20129@luca.pas.lab>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 10:47, Jeff Baitis wrote:
> Pete:
> 
> I've got a question concerning irq.c. In intc0_req0_irqdispatch() (linux_2_4
> branch) on lines 545 thru 552, the code reads:
> 
>       for (i=0; i<32; i++) {
>           if ((intc0_req0 & (1<<i))) {
>               intc0_req0 &= ~(1<<i);
>               do_IRQ(irq, regs);
>               break;
>           }
>           irq++;
>       }
> 
> My question is: why do we increment i and irq independently?
> Why doesn't the code read:
> 
>       for (i=0; i<32; i++) {
>           if ((intc0_req0 & (1<<i))) {
>               intc0_req0 &= ~(1<<i);
>               do_IRQ(i, regs);
>               break;
>           }
>       }
> 
> Thanks for your help!

No reason. It was probably more clear to me when writing the code and
later I didn't look for such improvements. Like Dan said though, he's
updating/optimizing that part of the code anyway ...

Pete


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>