| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0906150917q159d213ax82cd51dee8ad1a08@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:17:34 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: drop HARDIRQ_BITS definition from hardirq.h On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 16:43, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > linux/hardirq.h contains a fallback for HARDIRQ_BITS to 10 > if it's not defined, so it is pointless to define a default > of 8 in asm/hardirq.h. There does not seem to be a good > reason why an architecture would want to limit the number > of hardirqs this way. > > Reported-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> > --- > include/asm-generic/hardirq.h | 13 ------------- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> is there any downsides to using a "too large" value ? i.e. if my >> system has less than 256, does it make any difference at all if it's >> set to 10 ? > > None that I know of. I'm queuing this patch in my asm-generic tree now, > unless Steven or someone else has a better idea. based on Steven's comments, this patch makes sense to me Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> -mike -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists