Re: [PATCH v6 00/14] genirq: Cleanup the abuse of irq_set_affinity_hint()

[Nitesh Lal]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 2:30 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Nitesh,
>
> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 10:34, Nitesh Lal wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 11:25 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> The drivers currently rely on irq_set_affinity_hint() to either set the
> >> affinity_hint that is consumed by the userspace and/or to enforce a custom
> >> affinity.
> >>
> >> irq_set_affinity_hint() as the name suggests is originally introduced to
> >> only set the affinity_hint to help the userspace in guiding the interrupts
> >> and not the affinity itself. However, since the commit
> >>
> >>         e2e64a932556 "genirq: Set initial affinity in irq_set_affinity_hint()"
>
> sorry for ignoring this. It fell through the cracks.


No worries, thank you for reviewing.

>
>
> >> Thomas Gleixner (1):
> >>   genirq: Provide new interfaces for affinity hints
>
> Did I actually write this?


Yeap, the idea and the initial patch came from you. :)

>
>
> > Any suggestions on what should be the next steps here? Unfortunately, I haven't
> > been able to get any reviews on the following two patches:
> >   be2net: Use irq_update_affinity_hint
> >   hinic: Use irq_set_affinity_and_hint
> >
> > One option would be to proceed with the remaining patches and I can try
> > posting these two again when I post patches for the remaining drivers?
>
> The more general question is whether I should queue all the others or
> whether some subsystem would prefer to pull in a tagged commit on top of
> rc1. I'm happy to carry them all of course.
>

I am fine either way.
In the past, while I was asking for more testing help I was asked if the
SCSI changes are part of Martins's scsi-fixes tree as that's something
Broadcom folks test to check for regression.
So, maybe Martin can pull this up?

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh