linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:06:53 -0800
From:	William D Waddington <william.waddington@...zmo.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq_handler prototype

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:29:37AM -0800, William D Waddington wrote:
> 
>>Ease out-of-tree driver migration to new irq_handler prototype.
>>Define empty 3rd argument macro for use in multi kernel version
>>out-of-tree drivers going forward.  Backportable drives can do:
>>
>>(in a header)
>>#ifndef __PT_REGS
>># define __PT_REGS , struct pt_regs *regs
>>#endif
> 
> 
> Backportable drivers should check kernel version themselves and define
> __PT_REGS themselves.

I think I provided too much information :(  It would be sufficiently
helpful to just #define __PT_REGS <nothing> in  interrupt.h to make
things easier for low-life out-of-tree maintainers.  There isn't any
need to actualy detect version.  Just detect __PT_REGS already defined.

The "in a header" above referred to the driver's header - #ifdefs in
executable code really looks nasty IMHO.

The "#define __PT_REGS , ..." comment below was intended to be a
"helpful" note to driver writers.  Like I said, TMI.

>>(in code body)
>>static irqreturn_t irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id __PT_REGS)
> 
> 
>>+/*
>>+ * Irq handler migration helper - empty 3rd argument
>>+ * #define __PT_REGS , struct pt_regs *regs
>>+ * for older kernel versions
>>+ */
>>+
>>+#define __PT_REGS

How should I tidy this up - if it is acceptable at all?  I'm a
total noob struggling with a 1-line patch.

Bill
-- 
--------------------------------------------
William D Waddington
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
william.waddington@...zmo.com
--------------------------------------------
"Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on
the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/