On 2020-06-27 00:15, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 26/06/20 12:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-06-25 19:26, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 24/06/20 20:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
@@ -801,26 +802,15 @@ void show_ipi_list(struct seq_file *p, int
prec)
unsigned int cpu, i;
for (i = 0; i < NR_IPI; i++) {
+ unsigned int irq = irq_desc_get_irq(ipi_desc[i]);
seq_printf(p, "%*s%u:%s", prec - 1, "IPI", i,
prec >= 4 ? " " : "");
for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
- seq_printf(p, "%10u ",
- __get_irq_stat(cpu, ipi_irqs[i]));
+ seq_printf(p, "%10u ", kstat_irqs_cpu(irq, cpu));
seq_printf(p, " %s\n", ipi_types[i]);
How attached are we to that custom IPI printout? AIUI we *could* give
them
a "prettier" name in request_percpu_irq() and let the standard procfs
printout take the wheel.
I wish. Unfortunately, /proc/interrupts is likely to be considered
ABI,
and I'm really worried to change this (see what happened last time we
tried to update /proc/cpuinfo to be less braindead...).
Hmph, it's borderline here I think: we're not introducing a new field
or
format in the file, so any tool that can parse /proc/interrupts can
parse
the IPIs if they are formatted like the other "regular" interrupts. But
then said tool could die in flames when not seeing the special IPI
fields
because sturdiness is overrated :(
Which is exactly what I'm worried about. People do stupid things,
and stupidity becomes ABI. I hate luserspace.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
