linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RAW] IRQ: Maintain irq number globally rather than passing to IRQ handlers

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610060841320.3952@g5.osdl.org>
Date:	Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RAW] IRQ: Maintain irq number globally rather than
 passing to IRQ handlers

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Here is the raw, un-split-up first pass of the irq argument removal patch
> (500K):	http://gtf.org/garzik/misc/patch.irq-remove

So I'm not at all as sure about this as about the "regs" stuff.

The "regs" value has always been controversial. It's pretty much always 
existed (due to the keyboard hander and the magic debugging keysequences), 
and anybody who looks at 0.01 will quickly realize that the keyboard 
driver was one of the very first drivers (I think it's even written in 
assembly at that point: originally _all_ of what was to become Linux was 
pure asm, the whole "oh, cool, I could write this part in C" came later). 
But it's been pretty much a special case since day #1, purely for that 
"press a key to see where the h*ck we hung" case.

In contrast, the irq argument itself is really no different from the 
cookie we pass in on registration - it's just passing it back to the 
driver that requested the thing. So unlike "regs", there's not really 
anything strange about it, and there's nothing really "wrong" with having 
it there.

So I'm not at all as convinced about this one.
-
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/