Hi Jakub,
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:32:07AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 15:15:05 +0200 Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > @@ -608,11 +618,20 @@ static void smsc95xx_status(struct usbnet *dev, struct urb *urb)
> > intdata = get_unaligned_le32(urb->transfer_buffer);
> > netif_dbg(dev, link, dev->net, "intdata: 0x%08X\n", intdata);
> >
> > + /* USB interrupts are received in softirq (tasklet) context.
> > + * Switch to hardirq context to make genirq code happy.
> > + */
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + __irq_enter_raw();
> > +
> > if (intdata & INT_ENP_PHY_INT_)
> > - ;
> > + generic_handle_domain_irq(pdata->irqdomain, PHY_HWIRQ);
> > else
> > netdev_warn(dev->net, "unexpected interrupt, intdata=0x%08X\n",
> > intdata);
> > +
> > + __irq_exit_raw();
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> IRQ maintainers could you cast your eyes over this?
Thomas applied 792ea6a074ae ("genirq: Remove WARN_ON_ONCE() in
generic_handle_domain_irq()") tonight:
http://git.kernel.org/tip/tip/c/792ea6a074ae
That allows me to drop the controversial __irq_enter_raw().
Jakub, do you want me to resend the full series (all 7 patches)
or should I send only patch [5/7] in-reply-to this one here?
Or do you prefer applying all patches except [5/7] and have me
resend that single patch?
Let me know what your preferred modus operandi is.
Thanks,
Lukas
