On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Amir Vadai <am...@mellanox.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:41 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Amir Vadai <am...@mellanox.com> >> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:25:12 +0300 >> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:05 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>> From: Amir Vadai <am...@mellanox.com> >>>> Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 16:02:11 +0300 >>>> >>>>> We didn't get a response yet regarding your comment about the irq >>>>> renaming [3]. >>>> >>>> Well then, please hold off on resubmissions of this series until you >>>> do get a response and that issue is firmly resolved. >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't mean to push you, I only want to understand what is expected >>> from me and what are the next steps: >>> How will the issue be resolved? Do you plan to answer my question [1] >>> from last week, and just too busy right now or something like that? >> >> I have not seen any response to me explaining why it's ok to change >> the IRQ name strings in the context where this will occur. >> >> Once you explain that, we can make forward progress, but only at that >> point. > > Hi Dave, > > Just to put us back on the same page, repeating a bit the previous chapters.. > > You wrote [1] that if we change these names after the request_irq() call(s), > the > new name string will not propagate to /proc/interrupts output. > > So, indeed, request_irq() is called when the driver is loaded (and we > don't know yet if the port types are Infiniband or Ethernet). Only later > on, we rename the name when the Ethernet interface is up and we know > its name. > > Fact is that the new name does propagate to /proc/interrupts. > > Also, looking in the code, I don't see a reason why shouldn't it > be properly updated. When calling request_irq(), the name argument > is not copied, but irq_desc->action->name points to it. This same pointer > is being used by show_interrupts() when /proc/interrupts is shown. > > All in all, unless I somehow missed your precise question or I didn't > explain myself clearly, I don't see what is still missing in my reply, > can you please shed some light? > > What I did find is that the /proc/irq/N/handler directory name > which is a copy of the original action->name doesn't change. However > AFAIK, this directory isn't being used anywhere in the kernel. > > [1] - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg328444.html
Hi Dave, Going over this thread, Amir's response to your comments make sense to me -- could you please let us know if you're convinced... and if not, where his arguments break? I also copied some more folks and will love it if more people will provide their opinion on the matter. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
