[PATCH v4] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch_extn hooks to call into scheduler

[Jason Cooper]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:04:45PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:55:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:32:36PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > Applied to irqchip/urgent with Nico's Ack.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Interesting, so I'm discussing this patch, and it gets applied anyway...
> > > > > yes, that's great.
> > > > 
> > > > Quoting Nico:
> > > > 
> > > > "Of course it would be good to clarify things wrt Russell's remark
> > > > independently from this patch."
> > > > 
> > > > I took 'independently' to mean "This patch is ok, *and* we need to
> > > > address Russell's concerns in a follow-up patch."
> > > > 
> > > > Nico's Reviewed-by with that comment was sent August 13th.  The most
> > > > recent activity on this thread was also August 13th.  After four days, I
> > > > reasoned there were no objections to his comment.
> > > 
> > > Well... I mentioned this patch is a nice cleanup independently of the 
> > > reason why it was created in the first place.
> > 
> > Ah, fair enough.
> > 
> > > Maybe that shouldn't be sorted as "urgent" in that case, especially
> > > when the code having problem with the current state of things is
> > > living out of mainline.
> > 
> > hmmm, yes.  I've been grappling with the semantics of '/urgent' vice
> > '/fixes'.  With mvebu, /fixes is the branch for all changes needing to go
> > into the current -rcX cycle.  For irqchip, Thomas suggested /urgent for
> > the equivalent branch.  To me, they serve the same purpose.
> > Unfortunately, I occasionally hear "Well, it's not _urgent_ ...".  I
> > suppose I'll put up with it for one more cycle and then change it to
> > /fixes. :)
> > 
> > wrt this patch, I need to drop it anyway.  I was a bit rusty (it's been
> > a few weeks) and forgot to add the Cc -stable and Fixes: tags.  I do
> > agree, though, it's certainly not urgent.
> 
> Given the raised issue has to do with out-of-tree code, there is no need 
> to CC stable in that case anyway.

I could go either way here.  On the one hand, a fix is a fix is a fix.
On the other, if it can't be triggered in mainline, we shouldn't accept
it at all.

Stephen, is the out of tree code that triggered this bound for mainline?

thx,

Jason.