On 01/03/2013 12:42:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 22.12.2012, at 03:15, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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 <scottw...@freescale.com>
Have you verified that we don't run the check too often then? It's
quite costly, no?
Correctness takes precedence over speed, as does
readability/maintainability if the difference is minor. In any case,
the check gets faster later in the patchset.
-Scott
