On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:30:01 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > +static int dw_apb_ictl_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> > + const struct cpumask *mask_val,
> > + bool force)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> > + struct dw_apb_ictl_priv *priv = gc->private;
> > + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_get_chip(priv->parent_irq);
> > + struct irq_data *data = irq_get_irq_data(priv->parent_irq);
> > +
> > + if (chip && chip->irq_set_affinity)
> > + return chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask_val, force);
>
> This is wrong as it lacks proper locking of the parent irq. That needs
> to be solved at the core code level in a clean way.
Is it acceptable to call irq_set_affinity() or irq_force_affinity() as the
following:
if (force)
return irq_force_affinity(priv->parent_irq, mask_val);
else
return irq_set_affinity(priv->parent_irq, mask_val);
Thanks,
Jisheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
