linux-kernel - Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1235999770.5330.367.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:16:10 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, me@...ipebalbi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	sameo@...nedhand.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:18 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> 
> This stuff just pokes at some annoying current gaps in the
> IRQ framework.  I'll be glad when eventually there's no
> need to work around those weaknesses ... that is, when
> real threaded IRQ support is available.

Its unfortunate that you prefer these dinky little hacks over helping
out providing whatever infrastructure you need.

There's plenty good reasons for mandating that irq handlers run with
irqs disabled, if you need threaded handlers -- that's fine, but then
teach the generic code about them.

What you do _NOT_ do is hack your way around things, that's not how
Linux works, and by doing that you make the world a slightly worse place
for everyone.

--
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/