On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Sodagudi Prasad wrote: > On 2017-02-27 09:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Sodagudi Prasad wrote: > > > So I am thinking that, adding following sched_work() would notify clients. > > > > And break the world and some more. > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c > > > index 6b66959..5e4766b 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c > > > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c > > > @@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ int irq_do_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const > > > struct cpumask *mask, > > > case IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE: > > > cpumask_copy(desc->irq_common_data.affinity, mask); > > > case IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY: > > > + schedule_work(&desc->affinity_notify->work); > > > irq_set_thread_affinity(desc); > > > ret = 0; > > > > You cannot do that unconditionally and just slap that schedule_work() call > > into the code. Aside of that schedule_work() would be invoked twice for all > > calls which come via irq_set_affinity_locked() .... > Hi Tglx, > > Yes. I agree with you, schedule_work() gets invoked twice with previous > change. > > How about calling irq_set_notify_locked() instead of irq_do_set_notify()?
Is this a quiz? Can you actually see the difference between these functions? There is a damned good reason WHY this calls irq_do_set_affinity(). Thanks, tglx