On 2018-03-17 14:49:54 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not > > with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as > > possible > > while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock > > during IRQ-affinity changes). > > I reverted one patch one patch in the iommu while rebasing since it > > make job easier. > > If the goal is to have "as little raw_spin_lock as possible" -- and > presumably also to avoid unnecessary complexity -- wouldn't it be > better to leave my patch in, and drop patches 4 and 9?
9 gives me GFP_KERNEL instead atomic so no. 4 is needed I think but I could double check on Monday. > -Scott Sebastian
