On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 04:08:09AM +0800, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > > 在2024年7月3日七月 下午11:03，Thomas Bogendoerfer写道： > [...] > > > > there is no user of mips_smp_ipi_disable() (at least I didn't see one), > > so do we need this patch at all ? Just looking like ARM or RiscV isn't > > a justification for code churn. > > Hi Thomas, > > The per-cpu enablement process is necessary for IPI_MUX and > my upcoming IPI driver. > > The disablement, I'm not really sure, maybe it's a good idea to call it at > platform's __cpu_disable to prevent spurious IPI after IRQ migration. don't add dead code, so drop mips_smp_ipi_disable() for now. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
