| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:27:25 -0400 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com> To: fernando@....ntt.co.jp Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vojtech@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test_irq On Thursday 26 July 2007 11:57, fernando@....ntt.co.jp wrote: > 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. > Yes, you are right. Patch applied to 'for-linus' branch of input tree. Thank you. -- Dmitry - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists