Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "arm64: use cpu_online_mask when using forced irq_set_affinity"

[Sudeep Holla]

On 28/08/14 10:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:30:06AM +0100, byungchul.park@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > This reverts commit 601c942176d8ad8334118bddb747e3720bed24f8.
> >
> > This patch is designed to ensure that the cpu being offlined is not
> > present in the affinity mask. But it is a bad idea to overwrite the
> > affinity variable with cpu_online_mask, even in case that the current
> > affinity already includes onlined cpus.
> >
> > So revert this patch to replace it with another one doing exactly
> > what it intends.
>
> Sudeep: what's the right way forward for this? There seems to be general
> agreement that the existing code is broken, but a bunch of different
> `fixes'. Can we just take a straight port of what tglx proposed for ARM?
> (changing force to false)

Yes I agree but for that we need agreement from rmk and hence I asked to
wait till we hear from rmk. Main issue raised by rmk is if some other
interrupt controller implementation decide not to migrate away when
force is false(theoretically possible).

Regards,
Sudeep

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/