linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] let setup_irq reenable a shared irq

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804291822390.6003@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:23:32 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@...i.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] let setup_irq reenable a shared irq

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ typedef	void (*irq_flow_handler_t)(unsig
> >  #define IRQ_WAKEUP		0x00100000	/* IRQ triggers system wakeup */
> >  #define IRQ_MOVE_PENDING	0x00200000	/* need to re-target IRQ destination */
> >  #define IRQ_NO_BALANCING	0x00400000	/* IRQ is excluded from balancing */
> > +#define IRQ_SPURIOUS_DISABLED	0x00400000	/* IRQ was disabled by the spurious trap */
>
> Is it intended that IRQ_NO_BALANCING == IRQ_SPURIOUS_DISABLED?

Doh, of course not :)

Thanks,
	tglx