[PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request

Thomas Gleixner tglx at linutronix.de
Tue Jun 20 13:29:36 PDT 2017


On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying
> > > if the interrupt type is a timer.
> > > 
> > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The
> > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to
> > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter.
> > 
> > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole
> > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed
> > that out to you in some of the earlier versions.
> > 
> > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> > > -		       const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id)
> > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> > 
> > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per
> > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right?
> > 
> > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a
> > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the
> > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate.
> 
> Ok, I will the change this way.
> 
> What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the
> __request_percpu_irq change?

The rest looks ok. Please repost.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list