On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:24:39PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:10:33 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > > OK, I'll do these on top of this patch.
> >
> > Tweaking these 5 lines for readability across multiple
> > patches is just not worth it.
> > As long as we
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:10:33 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > OK, I'll do these on top of this patch.
>
> Tweaking these 5 lines for readability across multiple
> patches is just not worth it.
> As long as we do random cleanups of this function it's probably easier
> to just do them all in
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:50:52PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:37:02 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > After staring at your code for a while it does appear to
> > do the right thing, and looks cleaner than what
> > we have now. commit log could be clearer.
> >
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:37:02 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> After staring at your code for a while it does appear to
> do the right thing, and looks cleaner than what
> we have now. commit log could be clearer.
> It should state something like:
>
>
> Clean up code in find_highest_vector:
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:09:06AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:51:20 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > This text:
> > + if (likely(!word_offset && !word[0]))
> > + return -1;
> > is a left-over from the original implementation.
> >
> > Ther
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:51:20 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> This text:
> + if (likely(!word_offset && !word[0]))
> + return -1;
> is a left-over from the original implementation.
>
> There we did a ton of gratitious calls to interrupt
> injection so it was important to s
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 04:10:57PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:57:56PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:25:42 -0300
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:15:49PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > > > Although retur
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:57:56PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:25:42 -0300
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:15:49PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > > Although returning -1 should be likely according to the likely(),
> > > the ASSERT in apic_
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:25:42 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:15:49PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > Although returning -1 should be likely according to the likely(),
> > the ASSERT in apic_find_highest_irr() will be triggered in such a case.
> > It seems that this op
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:15:49PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Although returning -1 should be likely according to the likely(),
> the ASSERT in apic_find_highest_irr() will be triggered in such a case.
> It seems that this optimization is not working as expected.
>
> This patch simplifies th
Although returning -1 should be likely according to the likely(),
the ASSERT in apic_find_highest_irr() will be triggered in such a case.
It seems that this optimization is not working as expected.
This patch simplifies the logic to mitigate this issue: search for the
first non-zero word in a for
11 matches
Mail list logo
