Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1670804 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-20 16:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-20 22:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-06-20 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-06-20 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-06-20 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-06-20 22:40 +0200
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request |
| Message-ID | <tUs0W-1bG-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. Thanks, tglx
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tUxWH-4Sn-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1670804 |
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying > > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. > > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed > that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? > > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. Ok, I will the change this way. What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the __request_percpu_irq change? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tUy6l-4Vv-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1671086 |
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying > > > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > > > > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The > > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. > > > > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole > > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed > > that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > > > > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > > > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per > > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? > > > > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a > > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the > > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. > > Ok, I will the change this way. > > What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the > __request_percpu_irq change? The rest looks ok. Please repost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tUy6m-4Vv-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1671087 |
On 20/06/2017 22:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying >>>> if the interrupt type is a timer. >>>> >>>> Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The >>>> request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to >>>> request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. >>> >>> And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole >>> sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed >>> that out to you in some of the earlier versions. >>> >>>> -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, >>>> - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) >>>> +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, >>> >>> The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per >>> cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? >>> >>> Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a >>> patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the >>> extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. >> >> Ok, I will the change this way. >> >> What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the >> __request_percpu_irq change? > > The rest looks ok. Please repost. Ok, thanks. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web