Hi Thomas,
At 06/05/2018 07:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:
+{
+ if (unlikely(irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(irqd)))
Affinity pending is also judged in
+ irq_move_irq(irqd);
If we can remove the if(...) statement here
That requires to fix all call sites in ia64 and that's why I didn't. But
I didn't express clearly, I meant remove the if(...) statement from
apic_ack_irq(), it doesn't require to fix the call sites in ia64.
+void apic_ack_irq(struct irq_data *irqd)
+{
+ irq_move_irq(irqd);
+ ack_APIC_irq();
+}
BTW, If apic_ack_irq() can accept _any_ irq_data when hierarchical
irqdomains are enabled[1]? If it is true, If there is a situation in
the original code that we should avoid:
If the top-level irq_data has the IRQD_SETAFFINITY_PENDING state, but
non-top-level irq_data state not, when using non-top-level irq_data in
apic_ack_irq(), we may skip the irq_move_irq() which we should call.
[1] commit 77ed42f18edd("genirq: Prevent crash in irq_move_irq()")
we can make irq_move_irq() an inline function and have the check in the
inline.
I don't know why do we need to make irq_move_irq() an inline function.
And, yes, irq_move_irq() has already had the check
...
if (likely(!irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(idata)))
return;
...
Thanks,
dou
