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:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:05:39 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] arm64: Allow IPIs to be handled as normal
 interrupts
Message-ID: <20200911150539.GD12835@gaia>
References: <20200901144324.1071694-1-maz@kernel.org>
 <20200901144324.1071694-4-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200901144324.1071694-4-maz@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:43:11PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> In order to deal with IPIs as normal interrupts, let's add
> a new way to register them with the architecture code.
> 
> set_smp_ipi_range() takes a range of interrupts, and allows
> the arch code to request them as if the were normal interrupts.
> A standard handler is then called by the core IRQ code to deal
> with the IPI.
> 
> This means that we don't need to call irq_enter/irq_exit, and
> that we don't need to deal with set_irq_regs either. So let's
> move the dispatcher into its own function, and leave handle_IPI()
> as a compatibility function.
> 
> On the sending side, let's make use of ipi_send_mask, which
> already exists for this purpose.
> 
> One of the major difference is that we end up, in some cases
> (such as when performing IRQ time accounting on the scheduler
> IPI), end up with nested irq_enter()/irq_exit() pairs.
> Other than the (relatively small) overhead, there should be
> no consequences to it (these pairs are designed to nest
> correctly, and the accounting shouldn't be off).
> 
> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>

In case you need an ack for the arm64 part:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>