Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752014AbdGYN0s convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:26:48 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-107.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.107]:22772 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-107.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839AbdGYN0r (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:26:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack callback To: Mans Rullgard , Doug Berger CC: Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Jason Cooper , Florian Fainelli , LKML , Linux ARM , Mason References: <20170719190734.18566-1-opendmb@gmail.com> <20170719190734.18566-3-opendmb@gmail.com> <7a51555f-8191-9ebd-1f30-7c20f6db9d3f@sigmadesigns.com> <8d29fec9-35b8-c33b-3091-3e9a51c99ed7@gmail.com> From: Marc Gonzalez Message-ID: <6f0092f7-692f-4a15-1d95-40f4e59c8585@sigmadesigns.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:26:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [172.27.0.114] X-MC-Unique: z0vAMVgiPSuVxW7k0tn06w-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1001 Lines: 24 On 25/07/2017 15:16, M?ns Rullg?rd 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. Regards.