linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq: irq_chip->startup() usage in setup_irq and set_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: <1219416584.31630.639.camel@bri1004.bri.st.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:49:44 +0100
From:	Pawel MOLL <pawel.moll@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: irq_chip->startup() usage in setup_irq and
	set_irq_chained handler

Hi, Ingo,

Apparently I have swapped To: and Cc: field in the original mail,
apologies.

> This patch clarifies a usage of irq_chip->startup() callback:
> 
> 1. The "if (startup) startup(); else enabled();" code in setup_irq()
>    is unnecessary, as startup() falls back to enabled() via
>    default callbacks, set by irq_chip_set_defaults().
> 
> 2. When using set_irq_chained_handler() the startup() was never called,
>    which is not good at all... Fixed. And again - when startup() is not
>    defined the call will fall back to enable() than to unmask() via
>    default callbacks.

Any comment on the patch?

Best regards

Paweł

--
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/