Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Wei Gong <gongwei833x@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] genirq: avoid long loops in handle_edge_irq
In-Reply-To: <ZSf3KrAk8fpyNEZr@MacBook-Pro-3.local>
References: <20230928100638.42116-1-gongwei833x@gmail.com>
 <87r0m3q32t.ffs@tglx> <ZSf3KrAk8fpyNEZr@MacBook-Pro-3.local>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:44:36 +0200
Message-ID: <877cnqlxmz.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 12 2023 at 21:39, Wei Gong wrote:
> O Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 04:32:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Now $COND is not true due to the affinity change and the edge handler
>> returns. As a consequence nothing acks the device and no further
>> interrupts are sent by the device.
>> 
>> That might not be true for your case, but that's a generic function and the
>> zoo of hardware which uses that is massive.
>> 
>> So no, we are not taking a risk here.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>>         tglx
>> 
>>     
> By maintaining the original loop exit condition, if a mask mismatch is 
> detected within the loop, we will not perform the unmask_irq operation. 
> Instead, we will wait until the loop exits before executing unmask_irq.
> Could this approach potentially solve the issue of lost interrupts?

How so exactly?