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:     qianjun.kernel@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org,
        luto@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     laoar.shao@gmail.com, qais.yousef@arm.com, urezki@gmail.com,
        jun qian <qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/4] softirq: Factor loop termination condition
In-Reply-To: <87v9g38tcc.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20200915115609.85106-1-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com> <20200915115609.85106-3-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com> <87v9g38tcc.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:31:27 +0200
Message-ID: <87r1qr8ig0.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 10:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15 2020 at 19:56, qianjun kernel wrote:
>>  asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void)
>>  {
>>  	u64 start = sched_clock();
>>  	unsigned long old_flags = current->flags;
>> -	int max_restart = MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART;
>> +	unsigned int max_restart = MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART;
>
> And this change is related to making the timeout check a function in
> which way?

Aside of that looking at:

      https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200911155555.GX2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

Peter gave you a series of patches, granted they are untested and
lacking proper changelogs. But you go and repost them mostly unmodified
and taking authorship of them.

This not the way it works. You cannot claim authorship of something you
did not write yourself. See Documentation/process/ for detailed
explanation how to handle patches which you got from someone else.

Thanks,

        tglx