Re: [External] Re: [PATCH RESEND] riscv: Fix local irq restore when flags indicates irq disabled

[旭路]

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:24 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:20:53PM +0800, 旭路 wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:36 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:28:18PM +0800, Xu Lu wrote:
> > > > When arch_local_irq_restore() is called with flags indicating irqs
> > > > disabled, we need to clear SR_IE bit in CSR_STATUS, whereas current
> > > > implementation based on csr_set() function only sets SR_IE bit of
> > > > CSR_STATUS when SR_IE bit of flags is high and does nothing when
> > > > SR_IE bit of flags is low.
> > > >
> > > > This commit supplies csr clear operation when calling irq restore
> > > > function with flags indicating irq disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 6d60b6ee0c97 ("RISC-V: Device, timer, IRQs, and the SBI")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xu Lu <luxu.kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > There's no changelog or explanation, so what is the reason for the
> > > resend?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Conor.
> >
> > Sorry for disturbing you.
>
> Nah, tis fine.
>
> > I haven't received any response since the patch was sent last week. I
> > think maintainers are busy and thus I want to have a ping. This patch
> > was resent because I found it is said that resending patch is one of
> > the methods to ping maintainers in this kernel doc:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html.
>
> Right, resending is a valid way to do that - but leaving a comment about
> why you are resending under the --- line is advised so that people know
> why it is that you are resending.
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.

Got that. Thanks very much.