Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230803132818.2092166-1-luxu.kernel@bytedance.com>
 <20230803-curtly-sandbox-9ff8c7aafb85@spud> <CAPYmKFsbGMRY7S6WguDHkkY1futTS7+piKf83Pb+aktO2yLXpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230803-sage-mongoose-2452dbe3109d@spud>
In-Reply-To: <20230803-sage-mongoose-2452dbe3109d@spud>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?5pet6Lev?= <luxu.kernel@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 23:38:09 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPYmKFsQxA+TpecdmK6rcOnH+AeF0PmGMNriowZ=aK1=vfetBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH RESEND] riscv: Fix local irq restore when
 flags indicates irq disabled
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:24=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:20:53PM +0800, =E6=97=AD=E8=B7=AF wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:36=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:28:18PM +0800, Xu Lu wrote:
> > > > When arch_local_irq_restore() is called with flags indicating irqs
> > > > disabled, we need to clear SR_IE bit in CSR_STATUS, whereas current
> > > > implementation based on csr_set() function only sets SR_IE bit of
> > > > CSR_STATUS when SR_IE bit of flags is high and does nothing when
> > > > SR_IE bit of flags is low.
> > > >
> > > > This commit supplies csr clear operation when calling irq restore
> > > > function with flags indicating irq disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 6d60b6ee0c97 ("RISC-V: Device, timer, IRQs, and the SBI")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xu Lu <luxu.kernel@bytedance.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > There's no changelog or explanation, so what is the reason for the
> > > resend?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Conor.
> >
> > Sorry for disturbing you.
>
> Nah, tis fine.
>
> > I haven't received any response since the patch was sent last week. I
> > think maintainers are busy and thus I want to have a ping. This patch
> > was resent because I found it is said that resending patch is one of
> > the methods to ping maintainers in this kernel doc:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html.
>
> Right, resending is a valid way to do that - but leaving a comment about
> why you are resending under the --- line is advised so that people know
> why it is that you are resending.
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.

Got that. Thanks very much.