On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence > > > specifying > > > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > > > > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. > > > The > > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. > > > > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole > > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed > > that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > > > > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > > > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per > > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? > > > > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a > > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the > > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. > > Ok, I will the change this way. > > What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the > __request_percpu_irq change?
The rest looks ok. Please repost. _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
