From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:08:59 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] ARM: CPU hotplug: pass in proper affinity mask on IRQ migration In-Reply-To: References: <20110721151413.GD28942@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <4E2D63E3.8000308@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 7/21/2011 8:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Now that the GIC takes care of selecting a target interrupt from the > affinity mask, we don't need all this complexity in the core code > anymore. Just detect when we need to break affinity. > > Signed-off-by: Russell King > --- > arch/arm/kernel/irq.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c > index d7aa5c9..ab63c05 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/irq.c > @@ -133,17 +133,15 @@ int __init arch_probe_nr_irqs(void) > > static bool migrate_one_irq(struct irq_data *d) > { > - unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(d->affinity, cpu_online_mask); > + const struct cpumask *affinity = d->affinity; > bool ret = false; > > - if (cpu>= nr_cpu_ids) { > - cpu = cpumask_any(cpu_online_mask); > + if (cpumask_any_and(affinity, cpu_online_mask)>= nr_cpu_ids) { > + affinity cpu_online_mask; I noticed, you missed '=' above and same is corrected in PATCH 4/4. Should be fixed in this patch itself to avoid git-bisect breakage. Regards Santosh