linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: irq: Call irq_chip->irq_mask in irq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:32:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sreenivasulu velpula <svelpula@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: irq: Call irq_chip->irq_mask in irq_disable

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> From: sreenivasulu velpula <svelpula@...dia.com>
> 
> If interrupt driver has implemented the irq_mask/irq_unmask
> callbacks for disable/enable interrupt then call these APIs
> from irq_disable/irq_enable.
> 
> Currently, on irq_disable(), it just look for the callback
> irq_disable() implemented by chip interrupt driver not the
> irq_mask().
> 
> Add check for the valid callback of irq_mask() and if it is
> there then call it from irq_disable.

No. That changes the semantics of lazy irq disable and breaks
suspend/resume because we rely on NOT masking interrupts to detect a
wakeup.

The irq_disable() merily marks the interrupt disabled and only touches
the hardware when the interrupt controller provides an explicit
irq_disable() callback.

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/