Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752092AbdGYN3W convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:29:22 -0400 Received: from unicorn.mansr.com ([81.2.72.234]:54090 "EHLO unicorn.mansr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbdGYN3V (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:29:21 -0400 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= To: Marc Gonzalez Cc: Doug Berger , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Jason Cooper , Florian Fainelli , LKML , Linux ARM , Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack callback 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> <6f0092f7-692f-4a15-1d95-40f4e59c8585@sigmadesigns.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:29:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <6f0092f7-692f-4a15-1d95-40f4e59c8585@sigmadesigns.com> (Marc Gonzalez's message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:26:40 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1140 Lines: 29 Marc Gonzalez writes: > 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. Why would you prefer the less efficient way? -- M?ns Rullg?rd