From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751367AbdGZSUN (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:20:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:34494 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750867AbdGZSUM (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:20:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack callback To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOlbnMgUnVsbGfDpXJk?= , Marc Gonzalez Cc: Doug Berger , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Jason Cooper , LKML , Linux ARM , Mason References: <20170719190734.18566-1-opendmb@gmail.com> <20170719190734.18566-3-opendmb@gmail.com> <7a51555f-8191-9ebd-1f30-7c20f6db9d3f@sigmadesigns.com> <8d29fec9-35b8-c33b-3091-3e9a51c99ed7@gmail.com> <6f0092f7-692f-4a15-1d95-40f4e59c8585@sigmadesigns.com> From: Florian Fainelli Message-ID: <3b858e14-0da1-d4aa-eb84-f136ece8c2a6@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:20:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2017 06:29 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Marc Gonzalez writes: > >> On 25/07/2017 15:16, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >>> What happened to the patch adding the proper combined function? >> >> It appears you're not CCed on v2. >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9859799/ >> >> Doug wrote: >>> Yes, you understand correctly. The irq_mask_ack method is entirely >>> optional and I assume that is why this issue went undetected for so >>> long; however, it is slightly more efficient to combine the functions >>> (even if the ack is unnecessary) which is why I chose to do so for my >>> changes to the irqchip-brcmstb-l2 driver where I first discovered this >>> issue. How much value the improved efficiency has is certainly >>> debatable, but interrupt handling is one area where people might care >>> about such a small difference. As the irqchip-tango driver maintainer >>> you are welcome to decide whether or not the irq_mask_ack method makes >>> sense to you. >> >> My preference goes to leaving the irq_mask_ack callback undefined, >> and let the irqchip framework use irq_mask and irq_ack instead. > > Why would you prefer the less efficient way? > Same question here, that does not really make sense to me. The whole point of this patch series is to have a set of efficient and bugfree (or nearly) helper functions that drivers can rely on, are you saying that somehow using irq_mask_and_ack is exposing a bug in the tango irqchip driver and using the separate functions does not expose this bug? -- Florian