From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 C15CC277011; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754402370; cv=none; b=Ti1ZysyA7TVZbHvklq6OW5GN6GhSuTjW1fm+Fa0BTWFKtyWVAc98KyzfKGXeU70ijDKVHll/qA8HIo7I2yWfp3qvpM2VuSY0be9nN/i00RyP+0zwQt9KDgUPdCPCf+dzIXZE6PNkXoyhKSO0z5LjjJuoN1+4xNbMGj9bHKfnvwg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754402370; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4V5dBQ+eBPCJ1smNjnAgZUg0T+QL4DB32r+LUoylzy0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eg95L7L/gyiiFisnU5GT9MuB/FMyAqojUy4pYQngJRYQEjL1OEMGwoeMTJt9NPad3eCHHfjTBFrIocJbn6fbQdEvpsmfHOe6ES9uqgcsSXDJp4vad+kXgKBWN9a4PrWDqHNd9YngREeKh6Yi0BkIS1eKGbuiw8z45VD0qlq8j5k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=C+msLCQb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="C+msLCQb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6031C4CEF0; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:59:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754402370; bh=4V5dBQ+eBPCJ1smNjnAgZUg0T+QL4DB32r+LUoylzy0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=C+msLCQbJWncbbFJjxOGuHXbektWQ58Zvp45zhgaQzMpnkHSZ2xCeZuWcw1DzgacE D6vkoQycXuMJZrNOS8IZH+cGe6O6m5hOEVEinLUVzNNwCFqvdclDd/ztaH6f5NzFLe xKIwv5Tk5jsQyAontMhaPkrHI2TCLgRo776taGXBe+Elqu0bbqXDr6WhAg85KpyJcY Oi+Y6VS8rFsoRQTqtGwfsOd1pA+g+ME+x0yWYakW5uDjczwXMMQLIUSBGH9DbtvH1D Tgn7bYwqbrJPd6NP5qK0n34074NDyHK5/3VMpDXFvbigSWZefKkFeWNHUVXQlXwaAV HQj3URE/YfcIA== Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 09:59:27 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Marc Zyngier Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , toan@os.amperecomputing.com, kwilczynski@kernel.org, mani@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.16-6.6] PCI: xgene-msi: Resend an MSI racing with itself on a different CPU Message-ID: References: <20250805130945.471732-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20250805130945.471732-59-sashal@kernel.org> <86fre5aoqz.wl-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86fre5aoqz.wl-maz@kernel.org> On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 02:20:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >On Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:09:34 +0100, >Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> From: Marc Zyngier >> >> [ Upstream commit 3cc8f625e4c6a0e9f936da6b94166e62e387fe1d ] >> >> Since changing the affinity of an MSI really is about changing >> the target address and that it isn't possible to mask an individual >> MSI, it is completely possible for an interrupt to race with itself, >> usually resulting in a lost interrupt. >> >> Paper over the design blunder by informing the core code of this >> sad state of affairs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier >> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi >> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250708173404.1278635-11-maz@kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin >> --- >> >> LLM Generated explanations, may be completely bogus: > >s/may be//. It is an amusing read though, specially when quoting >totally unrelated patches, so thumbs up for the comical value. Yeah, it's still very much at the "junior engineer" level, but honestly I think that just the boolean yes/no answers out of it provides a better noise to signal ratio than the older AUTOSEL. >But I'm not even going to entertain explaining *why* backporting this >patch on its own is nonsense. Reading the original series should be >enlightening enough. Sadly it doesn't have the context to understand that that specific conmit is part of a larger series. That information just disappears when patches are applied into git. I'll drop it, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha