linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent loss of interrupts in IB/ehca

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: <18509.44672.668946.207110@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:28:16 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Stefan Roscher <ossrosch@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
	"OF-EWG" <ewg@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	"LinuxPPC-Dev" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, TKLEIN@...ibm.com,
	fenkes@...ibm.com, raisch@...ibm.com, THEMANN@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent loss of interrupts in IB/ehca

Stefan Roscher writes:

> This patchset contains two changes for IB/ehca and ibmebus.
> 
> The first patch enables ibmebus_request_irq() to optionally return the 
> IRQ number, which is used by the second patch to trigger EOI in case of 
> lost interrupts.

At first sight it seems like a very bad idea for a driver to be poking
into the internals of the interrupt subsystem like this.  Under what
circumstances do interrupts get lost, and why does doing an extra EOI
like this fix the problem?

Paul.
--
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/