On 03/13/2013 02:26 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 13 2013, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
we used t
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 13 2013, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
>> will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
>> we used to take with no pending interrupts a
On 03/13/2013 02:22 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
>> will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
>> we used to take with no pending interrupts and
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
> will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
> we used to take with no pending interrupts and we ended up breaking out
> of the while loop.
>
Acked-by: Jaehoon Chung
On 03/12/2013 07:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
> will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
> we used to take with no pending interrupts and we ended up breaking out
>
There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
we used to take with no pending interrupts and we ended up breaking out
of the while loop.
Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras
Cc: Seungwon Jeon
Cc: Jaehoo
