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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:08:30 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>,
        ito-yuichi@fujitsu.com, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI
In-Reply-To: <CAFA6WYPEw5x_3zDZSnkL23YjFWbF=VkUKefM6Ts46JLVaj2sDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1602673931-28782-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
 <1602673931-28782-2-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
 <fbf6bfecf344a06af94e17ccabb817dd@kernel.org>
 <CAFA6WYPEw5x_3zDZSnkL23YjFWbF=VkUKefM6Ts46JLVaj2sDA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.9
Message-ID: <f3596e3ed70737d36f72056827d7d441@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-10-20 07:43, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 17:07, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:

[...]

>> > +{
>> > +     if (!ipi_desc)
>> > +             return;
>> > +
>> > +     if (is_nmi) {
>> > +             if (!prepare_percpu_nmi(ipi_id))
>> > +                     enable_percpu_nmi(ipi_id, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
>> > +     } else {
>> > +             enable_percpu_irq(ipi_id, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
>> 
>> I'm not keen on this. Normal IRQs can't reliably work, so why do you
>> even bother with this?
> 
> Yeah I agree but we need to support existing functionality for kgdb
> roundup and sysrq backtrace using normal IRQs as well.

When has this become a requirement? I don't really see the point in
implementing something that is known not to work.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...