[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170531200424.GA23171@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:04:24 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] PCI: Add tango MSI controller support
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Mason wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 21:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:00:37PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Mason wrote:
> >>> On 31/05/2017 19:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>> This would be more an IRQ patch than a PCI patch, but if I were
> >>>> reviewing it, I would look for assurance that *all* the no-op
> >>>> .irq_set_affinity callbacks were cleaned up, not just those in
> >>>> drivers/pci/host.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying the patch is *wrong* if not all "do-nothing"
> >>> callbacks are cleaned up?
> >>
> >> I'm saying that (1) this probably wouldn't be applied via the PCI
> >> tree, and (2) if it *were* applied via PCI, I would ask that all the
> >> no-op callbacks were cleaned up at the same time.
> >>
> >> Huh, that sounds a lot like what I wrote above. Was I unclear?
> >
> > I'm afraid this sounded snarky, which isn't my intention. It seems
> > like there's a useful patch here, and I didn't want to see it get
> > ignored for lack of following the usual process. If this is all
> > obvious to you, my apologies and please ignore my suggestion.
>
> Thanks for clearing things up. I had indeed assumed from
> your first reply that the patch was pointless.
>
> Writing a script locating all candidates will be an
> interesting exercise.
Cscope only sees 94 definitions of irq_set_affinity. I know *I* could
never write a script faster than looking at them manually. While
doing that, I noticed irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(), which is used in
14 cases and appears similar to your patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists