[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86cy7ycnxi.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:44:25 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sven Peter <sven@...nel.org>,
Janne Grunau
<j@...nau.net>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
James Clark
<james.clark@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/25] genirq: Allow per-cpu interrupt sharing for non-overlapping affinities
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 15:47:01 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10 2025 at 09:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Sep 2025 17:31:17 +0100,
> > As Will points out off the list, the above lacks the a similar
> > handling for percpu_devid NMIs, leading to NMIs that are only handled
> > on the first affinity group.
> >
> > It's easy enough to move the above to common code and share it with
> > handle_percpu_devid_fasteoi_nmi(), but at this point there is hardly
> > any difference with handle_percpu_devid_irq().
> >
> > Any objection to simply killing the NMI version?
>
> Removing code is always appreciated :)
>
Works for me!
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists