On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 02:20:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:09:34 +0100, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
From: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org
[ Upstream commit 3cc8f625e4c6a0e9f936da6b94166e62e387fe1d ]
Since changing the affinity of an MSI really is about changing the target address and that it isn't possible to mask an individual MSI, it is completely possible for an interrupt to race with itself, usually resulting in a lost interrupt.
Paper over the design blunder by informing the core code of this sad state of affairs.
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi lpieralisi@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas bhelgaas@google.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250708173404.1278635-11-maz@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
LLM Generated explanations, may be completely bogus:
s/may be//. It is an amusing read though, specially when quoting totally unrelated patches, so thumbs up for the comical value.
Yeah, it's still very much at the "junior engineer" level, but honestly I think that just the boolean yes/no answers out of it provides a better noise to signal ratio than the older AUTOSEL.
But I'm not even going to entertain explaining *why* backporting this patch on its own is nonsense. Reading the original series should be enlightening enough.
Sadly it doesn't have the context to understand that that specific conmit is part of a larger series. That information just disappears when patches are applied into git.
I'll drop it, thanks!