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 041F62F3E for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:05:16 +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=1724583918; cv=none; b=ATJcPPHMmgeCkYLLsMdVvwi5+kDpZ9KESxv0ICiGtgUnnbkbsmyV4DL1IB+iJ60Mi9DmU6Lbo3p+TEHdStu4JmbkAJFLg+oKj7vB6zngE77tCDe5Va3Jj9IcAclx0LFFZeO5+CTykxIwQLUBn/GokQx7Pg6BnOGDKTM6wZvwYhg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724583918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gnvf3qdEHqFzz5dOGXJgvKpjcNiLE16xj7zXnd+XpoI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=ZDuLIobb/bDlPAJwu+tu7EjRnNn0/hyr6wYAwqSBrnPZ12WiDATDpuPgT7lVo8qsxOlKkzO6ZvvZQyLRFH3zm5rnKOo+ZsDzIgr+JjQkHG++3VBbpK6YwedBRDohWBugpf2VQLO7Hi5lMSlODADBM33lhehV/0b3psKJ7p1aumE= 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=NmW0+cZE; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=mB09hM6Y; 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="NmW0+cZE"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="mB09hM6Y" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1724583914; 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; bh=FLxSUEPFhr9uwNzXq7VSq2mviA+E+mOZjh03ETzXRF0=; b=NmW0+cZEftSk8G1bl83zLYCTyTfAVkIvJtik9es5FKBvsaweFAWCY6MmpQXpufAPmBhiUX LSK2KRVHQi/hg5K7D9KXA2u0jnmB8MvHltZRU9yqQJegiC1x2Yd1VIka/fcZXWJk3tv354 2OMALHLy5iHreTvQdH/X1Fj1hIyDP0XuJ4cO0ONU91X6WCNDRv113MKlNql3Bf9agnO0cN ASGhSw9j+FAaaR+Z2LjEAAAkvk9Zi3EicZg3+DrckKiyEUdrnMt1xiN3ze/QcAHCU5/yp+ YTQb6ukIQKSLqNJWBlfXBtP67CkLbCu9iysymY09w9GMw+QlJyYiSVjHoyghjQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1724583914; 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; bh=FLxSUEPFhr9uwNzXq7VSq2mviA+E+mOZjh03ETzXRF0=; b=mB09hM6YQgNSNC+Z51PAH4vK6V8AnCffF9M5FwK7NaHsCwu2pgNGfCN6b+fD34AYCjmOkt 3DGysFqXUQT7VwBQ== To: jeff.xie@linux.dev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xiehuan09@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: procfs: Make smp_affinity read-only for interrupts marked with IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 13:05:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87msl0g8wl.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 Sat, Aug 24 2024 at 14:54, jeff xie wrote: >> This unlikely is a pointless exercise as this is not a hotpath >> operation. Also please switch to S_IRUGO / S_IWUSR and simplify the >> whole thing to: >> >> umode_t umode = S_IRUGO; >> >> if (!irqd_affinity_is_managed(&desc->irq_data)) > > Okay, I will delete the unlikely. > > After thoroughly analyzing the code, I think it would be better to > replace irqd_affinity_is_managed() with irq_can_set_affinity_usr() > like below. What do you think? > > if (irq_can_set_affinity_usr(desc->irq_data.irq)) > umode |= S_IWUSR; Makes sense