[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251112182735.00001363@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 18:27:35 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "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>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, "Alexandru
Elisei" <alexandru.elisei@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/26] genirq: Add request_percpu_irq_affinity()
helper
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:29:34 +0100
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> While it would be nice to simply make request_percpu_irq() take
> an affinity mask, the churn is likely to be on the irritating side
> given that most drivers do not give a damn about affinities.
Only 37 instances. I'd have been tempted to do it anyway :)
>
> So take the more innocuous path to provide a helper that parallels
> request_percpu_irq(), with an affinity as a bonus argument.
>
> Yes, request_percpu_irq_affinity() is a bit of a mouthful.
>
> Tested-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists