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 17:13:35 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> writes:

> 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()

Sounds good.  That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.

Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
ball on this.

Eric
-
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/