From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BEDA366075; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 06:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788936867; cv=none; b=HiibP/awpF784Dv0isPSkquIRgpC6WDP6GwKX3FMI/ByNALdc+QSVWqKQqtAkxj00ObGUXGrLmDQf4O1ZeDX8U7JxdbqHA0d2yW109hoiEQH9ghh0kh/N3i2/+Nz7UHbNzVNacwSjlkEz2uzXZE5QmJ/SWidM20gwcHW99cY9Hk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788936867; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jykiTd5xkWh70GQ2ZfS18X1Za2aS3HOKVYWrPP1SfE4=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=J2E0VyZraMIuvUkgIeleCZWzwolq8+IttaGkI94NXnFQbf/E2Lfyw8mT49K78rgneBq5SrrIW7dEiYncQL1a8KGaFGgNB6d/oyDXG8g36Z7eQgfXgooc1t+OYNvDx/ae/aVTuLHVHP9ZBKWG/8aTs8C/Ixyt6NHIHHv+K95Nb2g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=adSkU3Fd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="adSkU3Fd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84C6C1F00A3A; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 06:54:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788936865; bh=jykiTd5xkWh70GQ2ZfS18X1Za2aS3HOKVYWrPP1SfE4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=adSkU3Fd5o6NWLvd+dtA+65qSexXAc3ZKGT2I+WCfEUae+RDt0jdrwAmxJdclSQ5w l1HJuQH2olBD0C+4Y0Jc3os1kSWgpHnF3qrojrMGnyQBZReDhoYi+XGjN7u2wj0Y8s cdHaumaDVO0Vw98OQzJ5Eev8O916/M/Jj5FoUUIFyDF9vKSWuvSU2wYcu4e7Yfy+OH 5kftt9BPoWX0GzYcTJOFnS9ol9D1G31P2HgrcdwzvoLiJR1UziVfmsFkNY1nzmCxzD 6OMMMm5eh4oGta4lbmbJjr+wRbbM1HwPvKo4fBMTNOTPfQTBgW7kFNixBnMupdn/7R W9mbceM4x39Ug== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] x86/irq: Fall back to irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy() in fixup_irqs() Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Naman Jain" Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260909064448.1004-3-namjain@linux.microsoft.com> References: <20260909064448.1004-1-namjain@linux.microsoft.com> <20260909064448.1004-3-namjain@linux.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 06:54:25 +0000 Message-Id: <20260909065425.84C6C1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > fixup_irqs() re-injects a pending interrupt on its new target CPU by > looking at the outermost domain chip and invoking its irq_retrigger() > callback directly. When the outermost chip does not implement > irq_retrigger(), the pending interrupt is silently dropped, which can > lead to lost interrupts on CPU hot-unplug. >=20 > Keep calling the outermost chip's irq_retrigger() when it is present, > but fall back to irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy() otherwise, which walks > up the interrupt hierarchy until it finds a chip that implements > irq_retrigger(). >=20 > While at it, use a scoped guard for desc->lock. VECTOR_RETRIGGERED is > now set only when the retrigger succeeds instead of unconditionally, > which is harmless today since apic_retrigger_irq() always returns 1. >=20 > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner > Reviewed-by: Shradha Gupta > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley > Signed-off-by: Naman Jain Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909064448.1004= -1-namjain@linux.microsoft.com?part=3D2