linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

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:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:58:56 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> writes:
>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
>> model is sufficient?
> 
> Good question.  At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
> is where we have the information now.  Non-genirq architectures needs
> work of course.
> 
> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested).  Or that we need to 
> allow both forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.

After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we 
simply do not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()

	Jeff



-
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/