On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/30/2019 07:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > @@ -65,9 +65,10 @@ struct irq_desc {
> > unsigned int core_internal_state__do_not_mess_with_it;
> > unsigned int depth; /* nested irq disables */
> > unsigned int wake_depth; /* nested wake enables */
> > + unsigned int tot_count;
> > unsigned int irq_count; /* For detecting broken IRQs */
> > - unsigned long last_unhandled; /* Aging timer for unhandled count */
> > unsigned int irqs_unhandled;
> > + unsigned long last_unhandled; /* Aging timer for unhandled count */
> > atomic_t threads_handled;
> > int threads_handled_last;
> > raw_spinlock_t lock;
>
> Just one minor nit. Why you want to move the last_unhandled down one
> slot? There were 5 int's before. Adding one more will just fill the
> padding hole. Moving down the last_unhandled will probably leave 4-byte
> holes in both above and below it assuming that raw_spinlock_t is 4 bytes.
Unintentional wreckage. Will undo. Thanks for spotting it.
Thanks,
tglx
