From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712E5CD11C2 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2020 header.b=HyGuA7aN; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=2020e header.b=4xJUkqSe; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VF4g85qbyz3vZH for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:18:12 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2020 header.b=HyGuA7aN; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=2020e header.b=4xJUkqSe; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de (client-ip=193.142.43.55; helo=galois.linutronix.de; envelope-from=tglx@linutronix.de; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VF4fJ2clPz3bmN for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:17:28 +1000 (AEST) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1712758642; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dKudWSPi1Iu7TxLjPm3UxpQgYscfG9LL8/XF7l+GrvA=; b=HyGuA7aNqIHvi+4YBZ2QTOZarh53jTI7l8pcSR0KU9yTM0x6W08XWU/pG67KKgdebK+sIX FwjoVZmyg7O6xEUcvy+MO47yD03ffWBG/lff3YyabpnGJKHwoaheyhwW5IP8k9wEfXefaF mYA/SjvfDZJZ+GKi2/1UsSyopdwaYdea5VK+/9Nr6IAnCdWrbNvA+4ezEc0FS8/ORLA2Ae 0koMqYMoes8RWFR8DrFeCRaZJ93fDlcnb2QUW9W+gXdKfhuFJpYMazyq1XlKIkYJx1OGKA 7GcCYStS4+NRnOcXxE9Xnrn+uwyydjRUi4I/lXtbSu2V6sqJgXLpz/ph/JC4Cw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1712758642; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dKudWSPi1Iu7TxLjPm3UxpQgYscfG9LL8/XF7l+GrvA=; b=4xJUkqSelu6YTEbO70Sq2RQ639AxhkKBi91Xaeg78LxGCFeiiaamNADOI/cbtpAQXtMwxa U0veKRge4GuNBODg== To: Bitao Hu , dianders@chromium.org, liusong@linux.alibaba.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, kernelfans@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de, npiggin@gmail.com, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/4] genirq: Provide a snapshot mechanism for interrupt statistics In-Reply-To: References: <20240306125208.71803-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <20240306125208.71803-2-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <87frvu7t85.ffs@tglx> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:21 +0200 Message-ID: <875xwp480e.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: yaoma@linux.alibaba.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Apr 10 2024 at 14:45, Bitao Hu wrote: > On 2024/4/9 17:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > By the way, what do you think of my reason for using printk() instead of > pr_crit()? Should I change this part of the code in v13? Either way is fine. Just put a proper explanation into the change log if you stick with printk(). Thanks, tglx