linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fully honor "nolapic" (take 2)

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, 16 Jan 2009 14:42:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fully honor "nolapic" (take 2)


* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 16.01.09 13:45 >>>
> >
> >* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +	if (disable_apic) {
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
> >> +		disable_ioapic_setup();
> >> +#endif
> >> +		return;
> >> +	}
> >
> > Shouldnt that #ifdef be avoided by always providing the function - 
> > just it is a NOP inline in the !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC case?
> 
> That would make for a much bigger patch, since the io_apic.h doesn't 
> (and imo shouldn't) be included without that config option.

But we are using io-apic functionality in that file, so we should include 
io_apic.h, right?

	Ingo
--
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/