From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sender-op-o15.zoho.eu (sender-op-o15.zoho.eu [136.143.169.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3161F12FB for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 04:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.169.15 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791173181; cv=pass; b=P4Dp35yYR687qIk95MhhuXOqZaIuKiZbPxj0RihWhIs5eoJufDXwufkBxclgL5yC4JlrOEg0wS4bPhw3VtkWxw2IVG7pIEWpBcx7MYjyTZjF7MCAxekvHQn738bKyiDs90++wKFZ0qCqbiobafTyf8zIFXsvx4YYo6n5uPPS+6s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791173181; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KCfCPAeQ2dsseQwbHe228EObJTEGbDN83Xg76shbAkU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZDTGHCDBE1ziQ3dw09PuCi7srouJ3tyewR2xr5OhX+Aq9aRLaNHzHHOETrt+10pwboN28xQhK39n6wv3AnJG7PieAkTJzSpoPxTLjrIRxQplSk1fSkY6V2QSE7nJ0Xf/JqzIwcfuNDor8bIPJdd/mcaW/5giK5TsXSXwrJtdaPo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=2; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=iav.lv; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iav.lv; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iav.lv header.i=iav@iav.lv header.b=bqbiKfi8; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.169.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=iav.lv Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iav.lv Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iav.lv header.i=iav@iav.lv header.b="bqbiKfi8" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1791173148; cv=none; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; b=SwmUQkGBNrCNT8h7YxNxVq1RdmSI27hn/XMwSeMr8Au0APQa7PWgX7u8B7Q+sV/dspD/kT/Eo0ZJawvCoKkKXvPN6usue5+BGDQq9Rz+ZXveSWwNKpoo+yvutqG0tVWdZaPgOz+oDyUSZWQ4rTvBPUhsGeoxMmhEpA9mhu68jEk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; t=1791173148; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=KCfCPAeQ2dsseQwbHe228EObJTEGbDN83Xg76shbAkU=; b=YT8jGJ9W8GSyrJlyCO84nfgw/6y5hzNO/tBwdAq/0ICaUnBmZ6QDo/nn5ihcvljS0wePcev1IqY00xse4a7KMxshJcFxThMEXNzbn3eqRTzceoDTHI5uCZ4mk+rOWFt1XA1vN9GPsVj8hGF1K0X4DXkQxI3b1VE+1j+m6jJ0dq4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.eu; dkim=pass header.i=iav.lv; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iav@iav.lv; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1791173148; s=zoho; d=iav.lv; i=iav@iav.lv; h=From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=KCfCPAeQ2dsseQwbHe228EObJTEGbDN83Xg76shbAkU=; b=bqbiKfi8xG3NedUxaGgDpRaZjBSIkAhXc1byN5HWAr+MGrRYJhbhCc38+tjxqtgI 5KJRrZefr3f4CKJq7IlrA8v6uyUV4LnV40ZUcE+LJdp/dPME/LuecdXyN/+jKH+c7hL nIXCOKMaObwYVL6rybImgnJhNmQx/Ui11/pAAgKo= Received: by smtp.zoho.eu with SMTPS id 1791173145981475.33248736530936; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 06:05:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Igor Velkov To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, Radu Rendec , Marc Zyngier , Eliav Farber , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Baoquan He , Heiko Stuebner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Igor Velkov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] genirq/kexec: Do not take the bus lock of an interrupt chip on the crash path In-Reply-To: <20261005014155.BD56B1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> References: <20261005-kexec-irq-bus-lock-v1-1-09f6b5323460@iav.lv> <20261005014155.BD56B1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2026 07:04:02 +0300 Message-ID: <1791173042898471846.39598@iav.lv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, 05 Oct 2026 01:41:55 +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote: > If an irqchip implements irq_bus_sync_unlock but omits irq_bus_lock, this > condition evaluates to true and irq_set_irqchip_state() is called. [...] > Should this check also ensure !chip->irq_bus_sync_unlock? Yes. The next version will test both callbacks, as irq_supports_nmi() does. No chip in tip/irq/core sets only one of them, as far as I can grep, so nothing changes for current users. Igor