From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.221]) (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 98F1A24501B; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 02:12:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768615944; cv=none; b=UxnywMSPJgXOGieJ/0I6UNVRS0Cf9nNiqgSyJ3F2BeMQSRHEUuUGm/svjO+T/KUbWufEQrayA7+W7CS/2BJDzbsv3Sptkyfj6z5gE8ckgpIRkz3wehFpzCc6cZ4CIugZ5UgP85HyeB4skrzbGvDHhflxhiqscxB2U8KtYy0PXm8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768615944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PI0mHuKSdy6ZYMg04sf7teJ60aXmjiCT2hLzHA6Nurs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=q637Ue712pjFgBd/jSlQGhenKxpKAmmk/uk4CA9dCYtqsLHyJ8y4/71JmRonpg/KFpmpo9Z3Q6++s73VHwtDVEeI34v/59TMO724sftKsSs8XwshtcqE1Aww56sjVci90pr7m2eQtt8dtSNMgYxnFPyMFy/X5AIMXxZI06OVpUc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b=pXluhKyt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b="pXluhKyt" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=h-partners.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=PI0mHuKSdy6ZYMg04sf7teJ60aXmjiCT2hLzHA6Nurs=; b=pXluhKytHrXU8PvdK7djOPITeTumB/RXb6QIGYHeE2ZmueD89BvOSz8+E3czSviqhIzaGG0eG Dpyr/7qyOC1fwk66+kiXV1mS7aym+cehk6xsf2dLF6lIXXJiEw8nyZWpafnXy2qnJWRLUXWcgza QlKeFvBb3VK3aksaMz8P9/o= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.144]) by canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dtKrz2rtMzRhS9; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:08:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.32]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6DD540538; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:12:12 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) by dggemv705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:12:12 +0800 Received: from [10.67.121.59] (10.67.121.59) by kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:12:12 +0800 Message-ID: <9111d052-ea4f-443b-ba94-126b9c4262f5@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:12:11 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailbox: pcc: Remove spurious IRQF_ONESHOT usage To: Sudeep Holla , Mark Brown CC: Jassi Brar , Aishwarya TCV , , References: <20260116-mailbox-pcc-non-threaded-irq-v1-1-916b093329cd@kernel.org> From: "lihuisong (C)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.206) To kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) On 1/16/2026 10:28 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 02:07:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> The PCC code currently specifies IRQF_ONESHOT if the interrupt could >> potentially be shared but doesn't actually use request_threaded_irq() and >> the interrupt handler does not use IRQ_WAKE_THREAD so IRQF_ONESHOT is >> never relevant. Since commit aef30c8d569c ("genirq: Warn about using >> IRQF_ONESHOT without a threaded handler") specifying it has resulted in a >> WARN_ON(), fix this by removing IRQF_ONESHOT. >> > Looking back, can't think of any reason why we retained IRQF_ONESHOT > when we added IRQF_SHARED. Thanks for spotting and fixing it. > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla The interrupt status of channel is cleared by bit first in pcc_mbox_irq. And it is a hard irq handler. Rmoving IRQF_ONESHOT looks good to me. Thanks for fixing it. Acked-by: lihuisong@huawei.com >