From: "Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com>,
Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack callback
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:13:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yw1x4ltzm2ok.fsf@mansr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3b858e14-0da1-d4aa-eb84-f136ece8c2a6@gmail.com> (Florian Fainelli's message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:20:05 -0700")
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> writes:
> On 07/25/2017 06:29 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 25/07/2017 15:16, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>
>>>> What happened to the patch adding the proper combined function?
>>>
>>> It appears you're not CCed on v2.
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9859799/
>>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Yes, you understand correctly. The irq_mask_ack method is entirely
>>>> optional and I assume that is why this issue went undetected for so
>>>> long; however, it is slightly more efficient to combine the functions
>>>> (even if the ack is unnecessary) which is why I chose to do so for my
>>>> changes to the irqchip-brcmstb-l2 driver where I first discovered this
>>>> issue. How much value the improved efficiency has is certainly
>>>> debatable, but interrupt handling is one area where people might care
>>>> about such a small difference. As the irqchip-tango driver maintainer
>>>> you are welcome to decide whether or not the irq_mask_ack method makes
>>>> sense to you.
>>>
>>> My preference goes to leaving the irq_mask_ack callback undefined,
>>> and let the irqchip framework use irq_mask and irq_ack instead.
>>
>> Why would you prefer the less efficient way?
>>
>
> Same question here, that does not really make sense to me.
>
> The whole point of this patch series is to have a set of efficient and
> bugfree (or nearly) helper functions that drivers can rely on, are you
> saying that somehow using irq_mask_and_ack is exposing a bug in the
> tango irqchip driver and using the separate functions does not expose
> this bug?
There is currently a bug in that the function used doesn't do what its
name implies which can't be good. Using the separate mask and ack
functions obviously works, but combining them saves a lock/unlock
sequence. The correct combined function has already been written, so I
see no reason not to use it.
--
Måns Rullgård
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-26 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-19 19:07 [PATCH v2 0/6] Add support for BCM7271 style interrupt controller Doug Berger
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] genirq: generic chip: add irq_gc_mask_disable_and_ack_set() Doug Berger
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] irqchip/tango: Use irq_gc_mask_disable_and_ack_set Doug Berger
2017-07-24 16:40 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-07-24 17:54 ` Doug Berger
2017-07-25 13:08 ` [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack callback Marc Gonzalez
2017-07-25 13:16 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-07-25 13:26 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-07-25 13:29 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-07-26 18:20 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-07-26 19:13 ` Måns Rullgård [this message]
2017-07-27 18:17 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-07-28 14:06 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-08-07 12:56 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-08-18 18:24 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-08-19 16:05 ` Måns Rullgård
2017-08-21 13:25 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-09-18 8:49 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-07-25 14:15 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] genirq: generic chip: remove irq_gc_mask_disable_reg_and_ack() Doug Berger
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] irqchip: brcmstb-l2: Remove some processing from the handler Doug Berger
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] irqchip: brcmstb-l2: Abstract register accesses Doug Berger
2017-07-19 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] irqchip: brcmstb-l2: Add support for the BCM7271 L2 controller Doug Berger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yw1x4ltzm2ok.fsf@mansr.com \
--to=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com \
--cc=opendmb@gmail.com \
--cc=slash.tmp@free.fr \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox