Re: [PATCH for -tip] irq: for_each_irq_desc() makes simplify

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

[KOSAKI Motohiro - Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:43:45PM +0900]
| > | "if (!desc) " mean this irqno don't have irq description.
| > | so I think this name imply mean skipping no irq desctiption element.
| > |
| > | Actually, on CONFIG_SPARSEIRQ, desc is filled in dynamically after booting.
| > | then "defined" is a bit misleading word.
| > |
| >
| > So if I would need to iterate over all descriptors including empty
| > I need to type all this long for(;;) form again?
| 
| We already have for_each_irq_nr() for this purpose ;-)

Which is not shorter form of desc iterator in turn :-)

Since the original for_each_irq_desc didn't check for NULL
desc's I think the better would to name it like for_each_irq_desc_safe
or for_each_irq_desc_inuse then.

Nevermind, Kosaki, since it's only me who is confused I should
just shut up :-)

| 
| > For me for_each_irq_desc
| > implies to iterate over each irq_desc allocated regardles of internal
| > descriptor data. For example in list_struct we have a special test if
| > entry is empty or not. So I think hiding details is not that good (and
| > that is why I was asking for more descriptive macro name). BUT if it
| > really supposed to behave like that then I don't object :)
| 
		- Cyrill -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/