linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/33] m68k patches for 2.6.22

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: <200705030327.02637.zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Date:	Thu, 3 May 2007 03:27:01 +0200
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/33] m68k patches for 2.6.22

Hi,

On Tuesday 01 May 2007 22:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Btw, is there any chance you could update m68k to use the generic
> irq code?  The only architectures that don't have a conversion
> in progress are m68k, m68knommu and arm26

I haven't looked seriously into it since it was pretty much rewritten.
What I need is very close control over the lowlevel handling to minimize the 
number of indirect calls and to get the interrupt delivered as fast as 
possible. (E.g. we even patch the assembler entry, so the basic flow control 
is pretty much fixed after boot.)
I don't mind the if the general management is a bit more complex, but how do I 
get rid of all the useless code?
At a bit closer look e.g. irq_desc would need a serious diet, it can produce a 
pretty large table...

bye, Roman
-
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/