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 S1755510AbbIAIsX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:48:23 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59629 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755190AbbIAIsT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:48:19 -0400
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:48:14 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
        Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
        Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu
Message-ID: <20150901084814.GB1612@arm.com>
References: <55E1AD09.7020701@huawei.com>
 <55E1CBE9.6080705@linux.intel.com>
 <66e158e6da958d355d54543ef69e5e94@www.loen.fr>
 <55E3020C.8020303@linaro.org>
 <20150831132031.2a017df1@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150831132031.2a017df1@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:20:31PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:15:56 +0800
> Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> > I agree. In arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c the irq migrate code is the same
> > as ARM32, and it's duplicate. But this is a bugfix, can we fix it in
> > a simple way, and refactor the code later?
> 
> I'm not buying this.
> 
> I really can't see how adding more duplication can be beneficial. It is
> not so much that there is duplication between arm and arm64 that
> bothers me (as if that was the only thing...). The real issue is that
> there is duplication between the arch code and the core code.
> 
> Migrating interrupts is a core code matter, and that's were it should
> be handled IMHO. Plus, we're in the merge window, and there is plenty
> of time to get this fixed the proper way.

Yup. I suggested this over a year ago but not sure why nothing happened:

  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/266923.html

Will