linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] killing the NR

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]

Message-Id: <200702162143.25130.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:43:24 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays.

On Friday 16 February 2007 20:52, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 08:45:58PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > We did something like this a few years back on the s390 architecture, which
> > happens to be lucky enough not to share any interrupt based drivers with
> > any of the other architectures.
> 
> What you're proposing is looking similar to a proposal I put forward some
> 4 years ago, but was rejected.  Maybe times have changed and there's a
> need for it now.

Yes, I think times have changed, with the increased popularity of MSI
and paravirtualized devices. A few points on your old proposal though:

- Doing it per architecture no longer sounds feasible, I think it would
  need to be done per subsystem so that the drivers can be adapted to
  a new interface, and most drivers are used across multiple architectures.
- struct irq sounds much more fitting than struct irq_desc
- creating new irq_foo() functions to replace foo_irq() also sounds right.
- I don't see the point in splitting request_irq into irq_request and
  irq_register.
- doing subsystem specific abstractions ideally allows the drivers to
  not even need to worry about the irq pointer, significantly simplifying
  the interface for register/unregister.

	Arnd <><
-
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/