[PATCH V8 1/3] irq: Add flags to request_percpu_irq function
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: 2017-03-23 18:55:18
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm, linux-samsung-soc, lkml, netdev
Hi Daniel, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 06:42:01PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
In the next changes, we track the interrupts but we discard the timers as that does not make sense. The next interrupt on a timer is predictable.
Sorry, but I could not parse this. [...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c index 9612b84..0f5ab4a 100644 --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c@@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu, irq_handler_t handler) irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); if (irq > 0 && irq_is_percpu(irq)) { - err = request_percpu_irq(irq, handler, "arm-pmu", + err = request_percpu_irq(irq, 0, handler, "arm-pmu", &hw_events->percpu_pmu); if (err) { pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM PMU counters\n",
Please Cc myself and Will Deacon when modifying the arm_pmu driver, as
per MAINTAINERS. I only spotted this patch by chance.
This conflicts with arm_pmu changes I have queued for v4.12 [1].
So, can we leave the prototype of request_percpu_irq() as-is?
Why not add a new request_percpu_irq_flags() function, and leave
request_percpu_irq() as a wrapper for that? e.g.
static inline int
request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
const char *devname, void __percpu *percpu_dev_id)
{
return request_percpu_irq_flags(irq, handler, devname,
percpu_dev_id, 0);
}
... that would avoid having to touch any non-timer driver for now.
[...]
-request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, - const char *devname, void __percpu *percpu_dev_id); +request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned long flags, + irq_handler_t handler, const char *devname, + void __percpu *percpu_dev_id);
Looking at request_irq, the prototype is: int __must_check request_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, unsigned long flags, const char *name, void *dev); ... surely it would be better to share the same argument order? i.e. int __must_check request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, unsigned long flags, const char *devname, void __percpu *percpu_dev_id); Thanks, Mark. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm/perf/refactoring