afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Michael Ellerman, > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote: >> request_irq() is preferred over setup_irq(). Invocations of setup_irq() >> occur after memory allocators are ready. >> >> Per tglx[1], setup_irq() existed in olden days when allocators were not >> ready by the time early interrupts were initialized. >> >> Hence replace setup_irq() by request_irq(). >> >> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos >> >> Signed-off-by: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd...@gmail.com> > > This patch is seen in next-test branch for last 4-5 days, i don't know > exactly how powerpc workflow happens, so a question - this would be > appear in linux-next soon right ? (for last 4-5 days i had been daily > checking -next, but not appearing there).
Yeah it will appear in next "soon". It's been stuck behind a big series that has hit some bugs during testing, so that has delayed me pushing the whole branch. > Sorry for the query for this trivial patch, i am asking because Thomas > had mentioned [1] to get setup_irq() cleanup thr' respective > maintainers (earlier it was part of tree-wide series), check -next after > -rc6 & resubmit ignored ones to him, this patch is neither in -next, > neither ignored, so i am at a loss what to do :( That's OK. I will take this one, you can stop worrying about it. It should appear in next tomorrow or Friday. cheers
