From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755209AbbGFNL3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:11:29 -0400
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com ([67.231.156.173]:39496 "EHLO
	mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753930AbbGFNL2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:11:28 -0400
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:35 +0800
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC: <jason@lakedaemon.net>, <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] irqchip: dw-apb-ictl: add irq_set_affinity
 support
Message-ID: <20150706211035.6676916f@xhacker>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507061228060.3916@nanos>
References: <1436156141-3674-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com>
	<1436156141-3674-3-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1507061228060.3916@nanos>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2015-07-06_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=0
 kscore.compositescore=1 compositescore=0.9 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0
 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 rbsscore=0.9 spamscore=0
 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1506180000 definitions=main-1507060210
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:30:01 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > +static int dw_apb_ictl_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> > +				    const struct cpumask *mask_val,
> > +				    bool force)
> > +{
> > +	struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> > +	struct dw_apb_ictl_priv *priv = gc->private;
> > +	struct irq_chip *chip = irq_get_chip(priv->parent_irq);
> > +	struct irq_data *data = irq_get_irq_data(priv->parent_irq);
> > +
> > +	if (chip && chip->irq_set_affinity)
> > +		return chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask_val, force);
> 
> This is wrong as it lacks proper locking of the parent irq. That needs
> to be solved at the core code level in a clean way.

Is it acceptable to call irq_set_affinity() or irq_force_affinity() as the
following:

if (force)
	return irq_force_affinity(priv->parent_irq, mask_val);
else
	return irq_set_affinity(priv->parent_irq, mask_val);

Thanks,
Jisheng