linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 08 May 2011 11:44:54 +1000
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"JBeulich@...ell.com" <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating
 them

On 05/07/2011 12:04 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I'm not really sure why these can't just be an evtchn without an
> associated IRQ since it doesn't really have any interrupt-like
> semantics. Perhaps just a general desire to keep event channels
> abstracted into the core Xen event subsystem with IRQs as the public
> facing API? Jeremy?

It doesn't really need to be an irq.  The main reason was so that it
would appear in /proc/interrupts so I could use the counter as a "number
of times a spinlock was kicked" counter.  That could be exposed in some
other way if being part of the interrupt infrastructure brings too much
baggage with it.

    J
--
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/