From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/mips: remove duplicate structure field Message-Id: <20090923091323.GC5457@linux-mips.org> List-Id: References: <20090921192520.GB17310@linux-mips.org> <4AB7E0D1.10506@paralogos.com> In-Reply-To: <4AB7E0D1.10506@paralogos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: Julia Lawall , dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:23:45PM -0700, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > I'm still on the mailing list, and had seen this going by. I'm not sure > where that second .flags declaration got added. Way, way back when I > was pretty much the only maintainer of the file, irq_ipi.flags was > explicitly initialized to IRQF_DISABLED by an actual assignment > statement in setp_cross_vpe_interrupts(), and the per-CPUness was > handled by an "irq_desc[cpu_ipi_irq].status |= IRQ_PER_CPU". My guess > is that first someone (maybe me) migrated the IRQF_DISABLED assignment > into the declaration of the struct, and that later someone found the > IRQ_PER_CPU thing bogus or deprecated and converted it into a second > .flags line in the struct declaration, missing the fact that there was > already one there. > > In any case, I'm willing to sign off on Julia's patch. It's certainly > more important that the IRQ be PER_CPU than initially DISABLED, but > during the time when SMTC was seeing its heaviest testing at MIPS, both > attributes were true. I've reverted my patch and merged Julia's original patch with an extra comment added. Thanks Julia, Ralf From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:12:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.5]:53195 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492205AbZIWJMN (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:12:13 +0200 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8N9DO1b005924; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:13:24 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n8N9DO99005923; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:13:24 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:13:23 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: Julia Lawall , dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/mips: remove duplicate structure field initialization Message-ID: <20090923091323.GC5457@linux-mips.org> References: <20090921192520.GB17310@linux-mips.org> <4AB7E0D1.10506@paralogos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AB7E0D1.10506@paralogos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 24070 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:23:45PM -0700, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > I'm still on the mailing list, and had seen this going by. I'm not sure > where that second .flags declaration got added. Way, way back when I > was pretty much the only maintainer of the file, irq_ipi.flags was > explicitly initialized to IRQF_DISABLED by an actual assignment > statement in setp_cross_vpe_interrupts(), and the per-CPUness was > handled by an "irq_desc[cpu_ipi_irq].status |= IRQ_PER_CPU". My guess > is that first someone (maybe me) migrated the IRQF_DISABLED assignment > into the declaration of the struct, and that later someone found the > IRQ_PER_CPU thing bogus or deprecated and converted it into a second > .flags line in the struct declaration, missing the fact that there was > already one there. > > In any case, I'm willing to sign off on Julia's patch. It's certainly > more important that the IRQ be PER_CPU than initially DISABLED, but > during the time when SMTC was seeing its heaviest testing at MIPS, both > attributes were true. I've reverted my patch and merged Julia's original patch with an extra comment added. Thanks Julia, Ralf