Re: REGRESSION on linux-next (next-20260115)

[Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org>]

Hi,

On 21-Jan-26 11:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-01-21 11:20:53 [+0100], Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi,
> 
>> Right, so as the commit message of commit 8f812373d195 ("platform/x86: intel:
>> int0002_vgpio: Pass IRQF_ONESHOT to request_irq()") explains
>> the int0002_vgpio driver *must* use the same flags to request
>> the IRQ as the ACPI core does, which is why it passes IRQF_ONESHOT
>> even though it does not have a threaded handler.
>>
>> This worked fine until commit aef30c8d569c ("genirq: Warn about using
>> IRQF_ONESHOT without a threaded handler") as Chaitanya's bisect
>> pointed out.
> 
> Avoiding forced-threading on the int0002_vgpio handler is actually a
> problem on PREEMPT_RT. But yeah no complains from the stack.
> 
>> Sebastian as I agree that switching to IRQF_COND_ONESHOT on
>> the int0002_vgpio.c side is a good way to fix this.
>>
>> But If I'm reading your proposed changes correct then your suggestion
>> is to drop IRQF_ONESHOT from int0002_vgpio.c and then instead of
>> replacing it with IRQF_COND_ONESHOT you want to always pass
>> IRQF_COND_ONESHOT when using the non-threaded request_irq functions?
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> I'm not objecting against this, just making sure I understand
>> correctly.
>>
>> Note in that case you should also add this to the non devm_
>> prefixed version.
> 
> You mean request_irq() as it has been done in commit
>    c37927a203fa2 ("genirq: Set IRQF_COND_ONESHOT in request_irq()")

Yes I meant plain request_irq(), I was not aware this was already
done there.

Regards,

Hans