linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities

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: <47D6E288.4010601@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:50:32 -0700
From:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC:	hch@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> Sorry I missed your comment. Actually I just looked at the archive of the
>> original thread and I do not see any comments from you. Were they maybe sent
>> in private to Peter Z ? Can you please resend them ?
> 
> I suspect Christoph is referring to a comment he made on lkml, at:
> 
>   http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/2/3

Got it. The comment was
> linux/irq.h must not be included in generic code, it's actually more
> and asm-generic/hw_irq.h.  Please restructure the code so that the
> cpuset code calls into an arch interface which will then be implemented
> by arch code (which in most cases will be genirq, the other can be left
> stubbed out for now)

I'm not sure I agree with that though. We need access to irq_set_affinity()
from the cpuset code. It does not seem to make sense to call some arch
specific code if that functionality is provided by the generic layer.
Also note that IRQ functionality in the cpuset is ifdefed by the
CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS, so that we guarantied to have access to the generic code.
In addition to the irq_set_affinity we need irq_iterator() which is added by
the patch. Which again is generic.

So the question is why would we want to call into an arch interface if we can
call the generic one directly ?

Max

--
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/