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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>,
        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>,
        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()
In-Reply-To: <20200324110637.GA5836@afzalpc>
References: <20200304004746.4557-1-afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <20200312064256.18735-1-afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <20200324110637.GA5836@afzalpc>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:22:29 +1100
Message-ID: <87wo78wx7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> writes:
> 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).

Yeah it will appear in next "soon".

It's been stuck behind a big series that has hit some bugs during
testing, so that has delayed me pushing the whole branch.

> 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 :(

That's OK. I will take this one, you can stop worrying about it.

It should appear in next tomorrow or Friday.

cheers