On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 02:38:12PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 4/26/2020 12:01 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:33:53PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > From: Megha Dey <megha.dey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This is a preparatory patch to introduce Interrupt Message Store (IMS). > > > > > > Until now, platform-msi.c provided a generic way to handle non-PCI MSI > > > interrupts. Platform-msi uses its parent chip's mask/unmask routines > > > and only provides a way to write the message in the generating device. > > > > > > Newly creeping non-PCI complaint MSI-like interrupts (Intel's IMS for > > > instance) might need to provide a device specific mask and unmask callback > > > as well, apart from the write function. > > > > > > Hence, introduce a new structure platform_msi_ops, which would provide > > > device specific write function as well as other device specific callbacks > > > (mask/unmask). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Megha Dey <megha.dey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > As this is not following the Intel-specific rules for sending me new > > code, I am just deleting it all from my inbox. > > That is my fault. As the aggregator of the patches, I should've signed off > Megha's patches. That is NOT the Intel-specific rules I am talking about. Please go work with the "Linux group" at Intel to find out what I am referring to, they know what I mean. The not-signing-off is just a normal kernel community rule, everyone has to follow that. greg k-h
