linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] uio: User IRQ Mode

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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:39:58 +0200
From:	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-K?nig <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@...i.com>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uio: User IRQ Mode

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 05:29:59PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:11:25AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > > Maybe it's sensible to add the User IRQ Mode functions at least for now
> > > > into platform code.  Then at a later time if and when there are several
> > > > copies the discussion to move it to the generic part might be easier.
> > > 
> > > Do you mean your uio_pdrv driver?
> > No, I don't.  I meant arch/whatever/...
> > 
> Placing it in arch/ makes no sense, as there is nothing platform or
> architecture specific about it. It is a generic bit of functionality that
> various platforms may or may not want to enable, it should be reflected
> in UIO directly and simply enabled by those that care. Copying it around
> all over the place to make up for the fact the UIO people don't want to
> take patches is not a solution.

Why don't you make it a driver of it's own? Maybe some uio_pdrv_genirq?
I'm not really sure if it's a good idea (need to think about it), but
it's certainly easier to accept.

No need to change the UIO core.

> 
> > If you want to add it to uio_pdrv you either have to introduce a new
> > header file or you need to add it to uio_driver.h.  IMHO the first is
> > ugly and I'm sure Hans will object the latter.
> > 
> I'm sure Hans will object to pretty much any UIO patch that adds
> functionality he didn't envision from the beginning,

Like uio_pdrv?

> but that doesn't
> justify burying this crap in the architecture code. Likewise, without any
> serious technical objections to the user IRQ mode, it's also difficult to
> care. So far all of the technical issues raised in this thread and the
> ones before it have all been readily addressed, and I'm unaware of any
> outstanding issues here.
> 
> Having said that, it would be nice to respin this encapsulating your
> rewrite of the commit log so there's less confusion, and then see about
> having Greg or Andrew merge this. The patch can easily be reworked if
> anyone else raises any technical concerns about this particular approach.

Please read my other postings in this thread. You cannot ignore
everything just because it's not important on the SH board in front of
you.

Thanks,
Hans


--
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/