From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68E6C3A5A0 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C375120782 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726932AbgDTRbV (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:31:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49762 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726067AbgDTRbT (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:31:19 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ED8BC061A0F; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jQaGL-0003DP-4G; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:31:17 +0200 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81C6F101623; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:31:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: afzal mohammed , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Daniel Lezcano Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove setup_percpu_irq() & remove_percpu_irq In-Reply-To: <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc> References: <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:31:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87pnc2awt7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Afzal, afzal mohammed writes: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 09:34:07PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote: > >> While doing the removal of setup_irq(), it was observed that >> setup_percpu_irq() also can be removed similarly by replacing it w/ >> request_percpu_irq(), which does allocate memory. In the initial >> setup_irq() removal cover letters [1], it was mentioned that >> setup_percpu_irq() is untouched. >> >> After removing setup_irq(), it does not look good to let live >> setup_percpu_irq(), especially since it being a low hanging fruit. Hence >> replace setup_percpu_irq() by it's allocator equivalent. >> request_percpu_irq() cannot be used since all the users need to pass >> IRQF_TIMER flag, which it would not allow. Thus it's variant, >> __request_percpu_irq() is used. >> >> In addition to removing setup_percpu_irq() definition, >> remove_percpu_irq(), unused, is also removed. > > Do you feel that this series adds value ?, if not, i will abandon this > series. 7 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) is definitely worth it. There is no point in having two interfaces. I'll have a look at the changes later today. Thanks, tglx