| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:07:58 +0300 From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rt on PowerPC On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:11:50PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > This is trivially solved by converting arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c > > back to spinlocks (ipic_lock). > > > > Assuming that converting-back is automatic, there are few other > > chained interrupt controllers you might want to convert-back: > > > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/i8259.c (i8259_lock) > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c (mpic_lock) > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe_ic.c (qe_ic_lock) > > Except that a bunch of those can be both primary and chained... Yeah, thanks for correcting. > It's > simply not a solution to have to "convert" interrupt controller code to > use a different locking scheme depending on whether they are chained or > primary... Actually, it doesn't matter whether a controller is a root IC or cascaded. Just as primary handlers, chained handlers don't run in threads, thus spinlocks should be used, not sleeping locks. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@...il.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists