From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tqr6g-0000nW-2e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:09:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tqr6d-0003jS-ED for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:09:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:09:25 -0600 From: Scott Wood References: <1356142552-13453-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <1356142552-13453-10-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: (from agraf@suse.de on Thu Jan 3 12:42:09 2013) Message-ID: <1357243765.22404.5@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/15] openpic: always call IRQ_check from IRQ_get_next List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/03/2013 12:42:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >=20 > On 22.12.2012, at 03:15, Scott Wood wrote: >=20 > > Previously the code relied on the queue's "next" field getting > > set to -1 sometime between an update to the bitmap, and the next > > call to IRQ_get_next. Sometimes this happened after the update. > > Sometimes it happened before the check. Sometimes it didn't happen > > at all. > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood >=20 > Have you verified that we don't run the check too often then? It's =20 > quite costly, no? Correctness takes precedence over speed, as does =20 readability/maintainability if the difference is minor. In any case, =20 the check gets faster later in the patchset. -Scott=