linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test

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: <2090.172.50.1.13.1185465429.squirrel@172.19.0.2>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:57:09 +0900 (JST)
From:	fernando@....ntt.co.jp
To:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vojtech@...e.cz,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test_irq

On Fri, July 27, 2007 12:29 am, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared
>> for
>> > them.
>> If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine
>> whether
>> a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return
>> IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED
>> unconditionally
>> when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended?
>
> Sometimes you simple can't tell and in those cases you have no choice.
As I mentioned in a previous email, i8042_interrupt considers that it
should not handle an interrupt when there is no data to read and,
accordingly, it returns IRQ_NONE in such cases. I was just wondering if we
could follow the same approach to make i8042_aux_test_irq more
IRQF_SHARED-friendly.

 - Fernando

-
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/