On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> wrote: >>> This makes it easy to grep :wakeup /proc/interrupts. >> >> I used to have another patch (not published) to provide this >> information via /sys/kernel/irq. >> >> OK, here we are:
> It's a bit hard to comment patches sent as attachments, but I'll try anyway. > :-) Sorry, I was thinking that Tony may test it first to see if it does what he wants. Of course I would send normally in case it's an expected approach. > IMO it is somewhat excessive to put the entire sprintf() under a raw > spinlock and it's not even necessary. It's a copy'n'paste of from the rest of functions there. > The value can change any time after you've dropped the lock and in > particular before the function returns, so why bother with locking? > desc will not go away from under you at that point anyway. IIRC descriptor's content might be changed, or descriptor itself might be gone (potential crash). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
