On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:04:23AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/06/13 04:07, Vinayak Kale wrote: > > This patch series adds support to handle interrupt > > registration/deregistration > > in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu. > > > > Patches in this patch series were previously sent out as separate patches > > [1]. > > This patch series incorporates comments/fixes suggested for original > > patches. > > > > [1] > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/205888.html > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/204414.html > > > > > > Vinayak Kale (2): > > genirq: error reporting in request_percpu_irq() and > > request_threaded_irq() > > arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 109 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > kernel/irq/manage.c | 12 +++-- > > 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > > What ever happened to the approach here[1]? It doesn't look very nice to > have to request the irq first as a per-cpu interrupt and then try as a > non-percpu interrupt when genirq already knows if its per-cpu or not. > > [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html
Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about that approach. Whilst it certainly looks cleaner from a user perspective, I always get scared when I see 'desc->status_use_accessors' since it tends to incur the wrath of tglx :) That said, I guess that should be fine in irqdesc.h (basically adding a new accessor). Chris went missing after sending those initial patches, so perhaps Vinayak could look at resurrecting those? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/