linux-kernel - Re: Why does handle_simple_irq() require IRQ's to be disabled?

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:	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	David Jander <david.jander@...tonic.nl>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why does handle_simple_irq() require IRQ's to be disabled?

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, David Jander wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > handle_nested_irq() is your friend.
> 
> Thanks! This worked without disabling IRQ's.
> One last question, though:
> 
> I set up the handler using irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, ...,
> handle_simple_irq);
> From the interrupt thread, I call handle_nested_irq(). Is it OK, that in this
> case, the defined handler function (handle_simple_irq) is not used? Does this
> still make sense? Wouldn't calling just irq_set_chip() be enough here (it
> seems to work correctly)?

It should be enough. Though you should mark the demuxed interrupts
with irq_set_nested_thread(irqnr, true). That avoids that you create
extra threads for the demuxed interrupts which are never used.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/