From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755574AbaEGJqJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2014 05:46:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:47859 "EHLO mail-ee0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751629AbaEGJqH (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2014 05:46:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 11:46:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Tony Luck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] irq: core changes for x86 ioapic hotplug Message-ID: <20140507094602.GA17560@gmail.com> References: <1399340006-31550-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1399340006-31550-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yinghai Lu wrote: > Hi, > > These patches are core changes for x86 ioapic hotplug support. > > First part for kill old irq_reserve_irqs: > During reviewing ioapic hotplug patchset, Thomas pointed out that > should not extend irq_reserve_irq for that purpose as that is not > actually reserve. > Neet to clean up old irq_reserve_irq before introduce reserve/alloc_reserved > method for ioapic hotplug. > So here patchset that kill irq_reserve_irq that actually set allocated_irqs. > First remove irq_reserve_irqs for x86, and remove irq_reserve_irq > for sh. > Then in set_irq_chip use irq_alloc_desc instead of irq_reserve_irq. > Next will mark bits in allocated_irqs early for init irqs in !SPARSE_IRQ > > Second parts are new reserve/alloc_reserved functions: > It will introduce reserved_irqs bit maps to track reserved irqs. > New irq_alloc_reserved_desc() will only allocate desc when that irq > is reserved, at the same time irq_alloc_desc will only allocate desc > when irq is not reserved. That's not a proper description of the problem and the solution. The same problem of lack of proper explanation permeates most of your patches as well and that's very far from the quality threshold that core IRQ patches need to meet. Crappy descriptions and passive-aggressive responses where you pretend you don't understand our complaints and just minimally address the problems are not acceptable. So I concur with Thomas and this series earns a big fat NAK from me. (Please Cc: me to all (if any) future resubmissions so I can track progress (or the lack thereof) and see whether I can lift my NAK.) Thanks, Ingo