Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 16:36:37 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Vitaly Bordug <vitb@kernel.crashing.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
Message-ID: <20200324110637.GA5836@afzalpc>
References: <20200304004746.4557-1-afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
 <20200312064256.18735-1-afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200312064256.18735-1-afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michael Ellerman,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:

> request_irq() is preferred over setup_irq(). Invocations of setup_irq()
> occur after memory allocators are ready.
> 
> Per tglx[1], setup_irq() existed in olden days when allocators were not
> ready by the time early interrupts were initialized.
> 
> Hence replace setup_irq() by request_irq().
> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos
> 
> Signed-off-by: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>

This patch is seen in next-test branch for last 4-5 days, i don't know
exactly how powerpc workflow happens, so a question - this would be
appear in linux-next soon right ? (for last 4-5 days i had been daily
checking -next, but not appearing there).

Sorry for the query for this trivial patch, i am asking because Thomas
had mentioned [1] to get setup_irq() cleanup thr' respective
maintainers (earlier it was part of tree-wide series), check -next after
-rc6 & resubmit ignored ones to him, this patch is neither in -next,
neither ignored, so i am at a loss what to do :(

And i would prefer to let each patch go thr' respective maintainers so
that only least patches has to be sent to Thomas. Bigger problem is that
core removal patch of setup_irq() can be sent to him only after making
sure that it's tree-wide usage has been removed.

Regards
afzal


[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87y2somido.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de