Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:16:38 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove setup_percpu_irq() & remove_percpu_irq
Message-ID: <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc>
References: <cover.1586434781.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1586434781.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas Gleixner,

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 09:34:07PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:

> While doing the removal of setup_irq(), it was observed that
> setup_percpu_irq() also can be removed similarly by replacing it w/
> request_percpu_irq(), which does allocate memory. In the initial
> setup_irq() removal cover letters [1], it was mentioned that
> setup_percpu_irq() is untouched.
> 
> After removing setup_irq(), it does not look good to let live
> setup_percpu_irq(), especially since it being a low hanging fruit. Hence
> replace setup_percpu_irq() by it's allocator equivalent.
> request_percpu_irq() cannot be used since all the users need to pass
> IRQF_TIMER flag, which it would not allow. Thus it's variant,
> __request_percpu_irq() is used.
> 
> In addition to removing setup_percpu_irq() definition,
> remove_percpu_irq(), unused, is also removed.

Do you feel that this series adds value ?, if not, i will abandon this
series.

Thanks for your guidance w.r.t setup_irq() removal.

Regards
afzal