[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 3/5] MIPS: Octeon: Simplify irq_cpu_on/offline irq chip funct

To: Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] MIPS: Octeon: Simplify irq_cpu_on/offline irq chip functions
From: David Daney <>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:24:38 -0700
Cc: Ralf Baechle <>, David Daney <>,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3Bl7UJUQ6Pdbk4VSp/WYDKjpF6xOlI2q88pD2g1+PjE=; b=bacKZdUliM92EJ57eVZXuv2lFD0/M+j0cb1+ghDBMbukYB79WZBU7S7MbdtdST9pMK w6OXwSycyy5eS6vwYNsqYUb21KGwTje5Kplqe2uMqJjN24sNtcmyTSK0lvqAOO6HGMJU PL9/K6ZBpnysm3uzMXxHLupwCQJvi972u8Qxw=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qy+IErkDGv7znQu6mVltOhj3AJW8scKeZwtPREnvIa5Cv9Wq/VpKtNrNoBk8SkvyBG g3v21wqx9DO+h7hGn01gw4xFjJ72xCJsT3/ILivW5YrnHeDYBJuEw8oTwSll4Y9uL2WD zlFVgkrsIlYc4B6lSjjDhlstnn3/r4JSObS00=
In-reply-to: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103272326270.31464@localhost6.localdomain6>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103272326270.31464@localhost6.localdomain6>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.38.b3pre.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.9
On 03/27/2011 02:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote:

On 03/27/2011 09:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Make use of the IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED flag and remove the
wrappers. Use irqd_irq_disabled() instead of desc->status, which will
go away.

I rewrote my patch set and was testing it.  Interesting that I came up with a
function with almost the same name and purpose.

However my function told us if the irq was masked *or* disabled.  The idea
being a function that returns true if the irq could fire.  We cannot be
enabling the interrupt in the controller if it is masked.

For example I need to test this when adjusting affinity, and taking CPUs on
and off line.

I don't think your genirq changes can tell the me information I really need in
their current state.  I think we need to consider how the masked state
interacts with IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED and irqd_irq_disabled().

Since I have totally rewritten my interrupt code, I am a bit ambivalent about
applying these patches.  It might make more sense that I adjust my patch for
your genirq changes and test it before committing it.
The modifications I made are 100% equivalent to the code you provided
in the first place.


However subsequently, I made mostly equivalent changes. The main difference is that I added IRQS_MASKED into the mix testing it in addition to IRQS_DISABLED

The IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED flag is only used for the on/offline
callbacks. The disabled checked based on irq_data is in the affinity
setting code.

Unless I'm missing something we should be all set.

As I mentioned in the other e-mail, I am concerned that some of the chip functions may get called when the desc is in a IRQS_MASKED istate.

If we can prevent calling .irq_cpu_online when IRQS_MASKED is set that might be good.

Perhaps adding a flag similar to IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED, to disable calling .irq_set_affinity when the irq shouldn't be enabled.

With something like that, I think we can get rid of all the checks in the irq_chip functions.

David Daney

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>