On Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:59:27 +0100, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
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
It's not, and that's the main issue. A junior engineer would get into the rabbit hole of backporting too much, as they would be unable to separate the essential logic from the surrounding fluff. There would be a lot of noise, but it would be OK.
Your "thing" is very much at the "Senior Marketroid" level, in the sense that it manages to drag some semi-relevant information from various sources, and condenses it into an advertisement for snake oil.
I think I know who which of the two I want to work with.
M.