Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

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