On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Mason wrote: > On 31/05/2017 21:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:00:37PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Mason wrote: > >>> On 31/05/2017 19:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> ... > >> > >>>> This would be more an IRQ patch than a PCI patch, but if I were > >>>> reviewing it, I would look for assurance that *all* the no-op > >>>> .irq_set_affinity callbacks were cleaned up, not just those in > >>>> drivers/pci/host. > >>> > >>> Are you saying the patch is *wrong* if not all "do-nothing" > >>> callbacks are cleaned up? > >> > >> I'm saying that (1) this probably wouldn't be applied via the PCI > >> tree, and (2) if it *were* applied via PCI, I would ask that all the > >> no-op callbacks were cleaned up at the same time. > >> > >> Huh, that sounds a lot like what I wrote above. Was I unclear? > > > > I'm afraid this sounded snarky, which isn't my intention. It seems > > like there's a useful patch here, and I didn't want to see it get > > ignored for lack of following the usual process. If this is all > > obvious to you, my apologies and please ignore my suggestion. > > Thanks for clearing things up. I had indeed assumed from > your first reply that the patch was pointless. > > Writing a script locating all candidates will be an > interesting exercise. Cscope only sees 94 definitions of irq_set_affinity. I know *I* could never write a script faster than looking at them manually. While doing that, I noticed irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(), which is used in 14 cases and appears similar to your patch.
