linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: do_IRQ - send EOI for x86-32 on irq without handler v2

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:	Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:52:18 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: do_IRQ - send EOI for x86-32 on irq without
	handler v2


* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:

> Ingo, I think introducing additional dummy here would be a bit 
> expencive -- a number of callers of ack_APIC_irq just should not 
> check for disable_apic since it's not needed. disable_apic is to 
> depend on CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC rather then CONFIG_X86_64 
> actually. So make it then. Or you mean something else? Like new 
> apic->write_eoi operation? (I'm a bit tired so brain is a half 
> functional now :)

no, i meant a dummy apic->write() method in the !apic case. Check 
what ack_APIC_irq() does internally.

	Ingo
--
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/