From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e35.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E446CDDECF for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5BI7Dxq015267 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:07:13 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5BI7BYg263482 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:07:12 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5BI7AsH020080 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:07:11 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:37:01 +0530 From: Mohan Kumar M To: Milton Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix interrupt distribution in ppc970 Message-ID: <20070611180701.GA4466@in.ibm.com> References: <20070419115233.GA4172@in.ibm.com> <080126626f9bea228426c0c3d7bf1730@bga.com> <20070426092455.GA4144@in.ibm.com> <4cb567d635b4ac3333e6b4b2c27c12f2@bga.com> <20070503144721.GA28460@in.ibm.com> <20070604105455.GA4916@in.ibm.com> <20070606113134.GC4916@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: ppcdev , Paul Mackerras , kexec@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: mohan@in.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:58:10PM -0500, Milton Miller wrote: > The code is structured cleanly. However, when testing this patch, I > found (1) you printed the mask as a cpulist instead of a cpumask. > Since the user writes a cpumask to /proc/irq/xx/smp_affinity, it would > make more sense to print a mask in the error message. > I can change it to use cpumask print instead of cpulist print. > However, this is all mute because (2) the common in /kenrel/irq/proc.c > checks that a cpu in the mask is online and returns -EINVAL to the user > without calling the ->set_affinity hook (we have no select_smp_affinity > hook arch code). Unless there is another path to call ->set_affinity, > we can only trigger the case of no online cpu by racing between setting > the affinity and taking a cpu offline. > As you said, we can remove the extra check in get_irq_server function. Any other thoughts? > Does anyone know of another path to set the affinity? If not I would > remove this extra logic and change the behavior from ignore to set to > default server. >