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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove setup_percpu_irq() & remove_percpu_irq
In-Reply-To: <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc>
References: <cover.1586434781.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:31:16 +0200
Message-ID: <87pnc2awt7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Afzal,

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

 7 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

is definitely worth it. There is no point in having two interfaces. I'll
have a look at the changes later today.

Thanks,

        tglx