3.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Jiang Liu <[email protected]> commit f5cb92ac82d06cb583c1f66666314c5c0a4d7913 upstream. irq_move_masked_irq() checks the return code of chip->irq_set_affinity() only for 0, but IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY is also a valid return code, which is there to avoid a redundant copy of the cpumask. But in case of IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY we not only avoid the redundant copy, we also fail to adjust the thread affinity of an eventually threaded interrupt handler. Handle IRQ_SET_MASK_OK (==0) and IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY(==1) return values correctly by checking the valid return values seperately. Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <[email protected]> Cc: Jiang Liu <[email protected]> Cc: Keping Chen <[email protected]> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> --- kernel/irq/migration.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/irq/migration.c +++ b/kernel/irq/migration.c @@ -43,12 +43,16 @@ void irq_move_masked_irq(struct irq_data * masking the irqs. */ if (likely(cpumask_any_and(desc->pending_mask, cpu_online_mask) - < nr_cpu_ids)) - if (!chip->irq_set_affinity(&desc->irq_data, - desc->pending_mask, false)) { + < nr_cpu_ids)) { + int ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(&desc->irq_data, + desc->pending_mask, false); + switch (ret) { + case IRQ_SET_MASK_OK: cpumask_copy(desc->irq_data.affinity, desc->pending_mask); + case IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY: irq_set_thread_affinity(desc); } + } cpumask_clear(desc->pending_mask); } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
