| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: arch/mips/au1000/common/irq.c, Dan Malek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Patches for Au1000: PCI int problem, DB1500 board reset & ethernet, Hartvig Ekner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: arch/mips/au1000/common/irq.c, Jeff Baitis |
| Next by Thread: | Patches for Au1000: PCI int problem, DB1500 board reset & ethernet, Hartvig Ekner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |