linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] genirq fixes for 2.6.31

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: <4A67A0A2.40503@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:28:34 -0300
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] genirq fixes for 2.6.31

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +/*
>   * Interrupt handler thread
>   */
>  static int irq_thread(void *data)
> @@ -458,6 +494,8 @@ static int irq_thread(void *data)
>  
>  	while (!irq_wait_for_interrupt(action)) {
>  
> +		irq_thread_check_affinity(desc, action);
> +
>  		atomic_inc(&desc->threads_active);
>  
>  		spin_lock_irq(&desc->lock);

Any chance we could do this in a way that doesn't break the build for CONFIG_SMP=n? :)

Should this call simply be wrapped in an #ifdef, or should the function be defined for !SMP?

-- 
Kevin Winchester


--
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/