On 09/26/2012 01:40 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote: >> Btw, on a slightly different note, I'm also rather surprised that the above >> code doesn't care about the return value of chip->irq_set_affinity() .. >> Shouldn't we warn if that fails? > > It seems another case when irq_set_affinity is NULL whenever affinity is > changed or not before that, > For this case, I suppose the chip is not supporting set_affinity, then the > chip should set all > related irqs into just CPU0, otherwise, it will bring some trouble, do you > agree? >
Hmm.. no, I wouldn't jump to do that. Moreover, note that there are patches in -tip to enable CPU 0 hotplug. So doing the above might not be terribly helpful going forward. > I guess this case should be covered outside fixup_irqs() code. > Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
