From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 370A323F294; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757515632; cv=none; b=iC4c0g0JFuTCA60V/qqE5E3hrRkygAPx7V/J4wZKvhd2marIW8h0x4ox4yU+UrWXNMKjkrKumCRKQxvdZMnr3Mp7ubV7rxBopSSXbIOLXFSqfm4/gSY7vqQ4xkQCylaVSqPNNa8bLRWUQQUfuLkhVWN9AfVgqdiqrkbe0+99P9Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757515632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cx/cLzMdFwxZEfUZV5dGxlW5/VM8KOo9COoO8ANF8ms=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=N+0ALR/Dn7v/s7ISu+mqng8JCTt31HP5vdGl6sDUuPrj+i3gBKGJNSYnbOxZNDu78NZN1Slqm+/jK8LhWS1FlwuCyIuEaXIVgc6Lvecd9xp9AQQzcrrYtw53fSc9OjFdLp2F+zM0wPVVMYR2z+JvQO84DQESCbT+3kwiNtbvSVs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=BTscDZbO; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=gLeMKV+z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="BTscDZbO"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="gLeMKV+z" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1757515622; 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=cx/cLzMdFwxZEfUZV5dGxlW5/VM8KOo9COoO8ANF8ms=; b=BTscDZbOpxt/U2TKqJdaOr1GCip/McoA8ZI8h8ly6noV7+Dd2N4nXQGhCwb+4YddUR0xLk WpzaV1D3GQYd84DvI+PvWHyomaCOhP3vxBTKqnkW34MnWocKFq4/V6sRzTfD0h/HcuaTc0 1aHxiQ1dY776Y8FLU4rEv1sJV/OELPo1U1ws7aEaxXrAm8BTX7RXCX1M3PlX3WHGPhJm6t GxqvcxGqUn27vgi02Ezw8K+SQBJwg9NKFHL/yEiGPiwpZzJbqFvGflO5pgcIIMZvOLZBqg IeOvgQqeUOYzQXuKoYThKPZjBFD2UFY3gu5D0Za9rD0KSwdjcOsRTQ0/iFSHwQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1757515622; 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=cx/cLzMdFwxZEfUZV5dGxlW5/VM8KOo9COoO8ANF8ms=; b=gLeMKV+z5z7Eu3gocJslS196gaSHl3jMqoNzqO7evhJrjr8gHcw6/xN7fF/Y5RfwJHuWMZ k8IiifZXielclmDg== To: Marc Zyngier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mark Rutland , Will Deacon , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Rob Herring , Saravana Kannan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sven Peter , Janne Grunau , Suzuki K Poulose , James Clark Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/25] genirq: Allow per-cpu interrupt sharing for non-overlapping affinities In-Reply-To: <86ecsed84s.wl-maz@kernel.org> References: <20250908163127.2462948-1-maz@kernel.org> <20250908163127.2462948-16-maz@kernel.org> <86ecsed84s.wl-maz@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:47:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87h5xatlei.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Sep 10 2025 at 09:28, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2025 17:31:17 +0100, > As Will points out off the list, the above lacks the a similar > handling for percpu_devid NMIs, leading to NMIs that are only handled > on the first affinity group. > > It's easy enough to move the above to common code and share it with > handle_percpu_devid_fasteoi_nmi(), but at this point there is hardly > any difference with handle_percpu_devid_irq(). > > Any objection to simply killing the NMI version? Removing code is always appreciated :)