Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: 答复: [RFC] irq: Skip printing irq when desc->action is null even if any_count is not zero | Date | Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:33 +0100 |
| |
Chao,
"liuchao (CR)" <liuchao173@huawei.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 03:29AM +0800, Neil Horman wrote: >> > I'm not opposed to suppress the output, but I really want the opinion >> > of the irqbalance maintainers on that. > > Irqbalance is an example. I mean, when this happens, users who cat /proc/interrupts > may be confused about where the interrupt came from and what it was used for. > People who use Linux may not understand the principle of this. They are not sure > whether this is a problem of the system or not.
Well, this has been that way for 20+ years and so far nobody got confused. If it's not documented then we should do so.
>> Actually, irqbalance ignores the trailing irq name (or it should at least), so you >> should be able to drop that portion of /proc/irqbalance, though I cant speak for >> any other users of it. > > If irq isn't removed from /proc/interrups, it will still be parsed in > collect_full_irq_list and parse_proc_interrupts.
Sure, and why is that a problem? Again, this is really historic behaviour.
> irq_name is used in guess_arm_irq_hints.
That's a problem of guess_arm_irq_hints() then.
Again, I'm not against supressing such lines in general, but I want to make sure that no tool depends on that information.
Thanks,
tglx
| |