[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170710201503.gsri545sz6enmovj@earth>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:15:03 +0200
From: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:01:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Sebastian Reichel
> <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > This patch apparently breaks OMAP platform:
> >
> > 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70 is the first bad commit
> > commit 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70
> > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Date: Thu Jun 29 23:33:38 2017 +0200
> >
> > genirq: Move irq resource handling out of spinlocked region
> >
> > Boot failure log from Droid 4:
> > [ ... snip snip ..]
> >
> > Droid 4 boots current master again after applying the patch below
> > (which is git revet of above patch, but I provide the patch, since
> > it did not revet cleanly).
>
> Hmm. Do you actually need the full revert?
It's technically not a full revert - I actually did not revert the
__free_irq changes.
> I think it's only the __setup_irq() part that looks like it may be garbage.
>
> For example, I think it releases the resources twice if the
> __irq_set_trigger() call fails.
>
> But it looks questionably in other ways too - notably, the change to
> make the request call be in the same context as the freeing is done is
> apparently done entirely for symmetry reasons, not for any actual
> *reason* reasons.
>
> So I suspect just the __setup_irq() parts should be reverted, because
> they look both buggy and pointless. But the actual *real* part of the
> patch was the two-liner __free_irq() part, and that looks sane to me.
>
> So Sebastian, can you test if it's ok to revert just the __setup_irq()
> part, but leave the smaller part in __free_irq() that just moves the
> irq_release_resources() around at freeing time?
Looking at my patch it implements what you describe (by coincidence,
since git revert could not do a clean revert) as far as I can see.
It seems Pavel also understood it this way, since his patch is identical
to the one I provided.
-- Sebastian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists