Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:48:53 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [patch 07/16] genirq: Introduce helper irq_domain_set_info() to reduce duplicated code |
| |
On 13/11/14 10:00, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2014/11/13 17:57, Yingjoe Chen wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 13:43 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> Index: tip/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- tip.orig/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c >>> +++ tip/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c >>> @@ -882,6 +882,16 @@ int irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(struct >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +void irq_domain_set_info(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq, >>> + irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct irq_chip *chip, >>> + void *chip_data, irq_flow_handler_t handler, >>> + void *handler_data, const char *handler_name) >>> +{ >>> + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq, hwirq, chip, chip_data); >>> + __irq_set_handler(virq, handler, 0, handler_name); >>> + irq_set_handler_data(virq, handler_data); >>> +} >>> + >> >> Hi, >> >> While trying to use this function, I'm not sure about its interface. >> This function have 8 parameters but only save 3 function calls. After >> checking uses in Jiang's original patch, I think this make code harder >> to understand. > Hi Joe, > It's true, but we also want to reduce duplicated code:(
I'm in two minds about this one.
Yes, it looks horrible (to be fair, I hate anything that has more than 3 or 4 parameters, because I can never remember what they're for).
On the other hand, it gives you a nice check-point in your code, with all the bits you need to set, or at least consider. Because it depends on so many things that you may have to construct/obtain, you quickly realize that there is not that many locations in your stack that fits these requirements. Yes, this a twisted reasoning.
Thanks,
M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |