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 13:51:35 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fully honor "nolapic" (take 2)

>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 16.01.09 14:42 >>>
>
>* 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?

I don't generally (i.e. when !X86_IO_APIC) think so - anything accessing
stuff from io_apic.c is guarded by a similar #ifdef.

Jan

--
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/