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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:35:27 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org> Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>, Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > >>>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote: > > > >>>>>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and > > > >>>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt > > > >>>>>> is wrong. > > > >>> And that's a likely outcome in the real world. > > > >>> > > > >>>>> Ok. How about this? > > > >>>> Any comments? > > > >>> What about this instead: > > > >> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP. > > > > And why does that matter? > > > > > > Because the gic driver is compiled on both arm and arm64? I suppose we > > > could define is_smp() to 1 on arm64 but its probably better to rely on > > > generic kernel things instead of arch specific functions. > > > > > > > > > > >> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus() > > > > Probably, yes. I didn't follow the early conversation though. > > > > > > This was the first patch: > > > > > > ---8<---- > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > index 19ceaa6..589c760 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic) > > > break; > > > } > > > > > > - if (!mask) > > > + if (!mask && num_possible_cpus() > 1) > > > pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n"); > > > > > > return mask; > > > > Can one of these two patches be picked up? > > Sure. Just send it to RMK's patch system with my ACK. > I'm confused on that. MAINTAINERS says this patch should go through Thomas Gleixner's irq/core branch but it looks like only arm-soc has been taking patches for the current location. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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