linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new 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 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:	Sun, 5 Nov 2006 05:04:31 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	William D Waddington <william.waddington@...zmo.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq_handler prototype

On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:06:53PM -0800, William D Waddington wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:29:37AM -0800, William D Waddington wrote:
> >
> >>Ease out-of-tree driver migration to new irq_handler prototype.
> >>Define empty 3rd argument macro for use in multi kernel version
> >>out-of-tree drivers going forward.  Backportable drives can do:
> >>
> >>(in a header)
> >>#ifndef __PT_REGS
> >># define __PT_REGS , struct pt_regs *regs
> >>#endif
> >
> >
> >Backportable drivers should check kernel version themselves and define
> >__PT_REGS themselves.
>
> I think I provided too much information :(  It would be sufficiently
> helpful to just #define __PT_REGS <nothing> in  interrupt.h to make
> things easier for low-life out-of-tree maintainers.  There isn't any
> need to actualy detect version.  Just detect __PT_REGS already defined.

Out-of-tree maintainer will have to change his code ANYWAY. And while he
is doing that, he can spend 10 seconds to add 5-line version check.

More, if you've followed pt_regs removal patches, you'd noticed that
some of them were not trivial. In this case version check is least of
his worries.

> The "in a header" above referred to the driver's header - #ifdefs in
> executable code really looks nasty IMHO.
>
> The "#define __PT_REGS , ..." comment below was intended to be a
> "helpful" note to driver writers.  Like I said, TMI.
>
> >>(in code body)
> >>static irqreturn_t irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id __PT_REGS)
> >
> >
> >>+/*
> >>+ * Irq handler migration helper - empty 3rd argument
> >>+ * #define __PT_REGS , struct pt_regs *regs
> >>+ * for older kernel versions
> >>+ */
> >>+
> >>+#define __PT_REGS
>
> How should I tidy this up - if it is acceptable at all?

No, this is not acceptable.

-
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/