linux-kernel - genirq default

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1245774218.14443.120.camel@bri1004.bri.st.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:23:38 +0100
From:	Pawel MOLL <pawel.moll@...com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: genirq default_disable()

Folks,

A quick question about the interrupt management... (the story takes
place in kernel/irq/chip.c ;-)

Here we have the default_enable():

static void default_enable(unsigned int irq)
{
        struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);

        desc->chip->unmask(irq);
        desc->status &= ~IRQ_MASKED;
}

It calls chip->unmask(), which absolutely makes sense...

The default_disable(), however, is not symmetric:

static void default_disable(unsigned int irq)
{
}

Is there any reason why it shouldn't call chip->mask()?

I'll be more then happy to prepare a patch doing so, but maybe it's a
feature not a bug and I'm just missing something?

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/