lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
    Hi Linus,

    On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:01:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Sebastian Reichel
    > <sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
    > >
    > > This patch apparently breaks OMAP platform:
    > >
    > > 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70 is the first bad commit
    > > commit 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70
    > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
    > > Date: Thu Jun 29 23:33:38 2017 +0200
    > >
    > > genirq: Move irq resource handling out of spinlocked region
    > >
    > > Boot failure log from Droid 4:
    > > [ ... snip snip ..]
    > >
    > > Droid 4 boots current master again after applying the patch below
    > > (which is git revet of above patch, but I provide the patch, since
    > > it did not revet cleanly).
    >
    > Hmm. Do you actually need the full revert?

    It's technically not a full revert - I actually did not revert the
    __free_irq changes.

    > I think it's only the __setup_irq() part that looks like it may be garbage.
    >
    > For example, I think it releases the resources twice if the
    > __irq_set_trigger() call fails.
    >
    > But it looks questionably in other ways too - notably, the change to
    > make the request call be in the same context as the freeing is done is
    > apparently done entirely for symmetry reasons, not for any actual
    > *reason* reasons.
    >
    > So I suspect just the __setup_irq() parts should be reverted, because
    > they look both buggy and pointless. But the actual *real* part of the
    > patch was the two-liner __free_irq() part, and that looks sane to me.
    >
    > So Sebastian, can you test if it's ok to revert just the __setup_irq()
    > part, but leave the smaller part in __free_irq() that just moves the
    > irq_release_resources() around at freeing time?

    Looking at my patch it implements what you describe (by coincidence,
    since git revert could not do a clean revert) as far as I can see.
    It seems Pavel also understood it this way, since his patch is identical
    to the one I provided.

    -- Sebastian
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-07-10 22:16    [W:4.454 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site