linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86

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]

Message-ID: <20100112155929.GA5615@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:59:29 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:20:01AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I just noticed this when digging in the irq handling.  At least for arm
> this doesn't make sense.  Not sure if x86 is the only arch this test
> is valid for, but probably it is.
... so I added linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/spurious.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/spurious.c b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> index 22b0a6e..4996b66 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> @@ -199,8 +199,10 @@ try_misrouted_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc,
>  	if (irqfixup < 2)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_X86)
>  	if (!irq)
>  		return 1;
> +#endif
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Since we don't get the descriptor lock, "action" can
the feed-back I have got up to now wasn't helpfull.  (Only some "irq0 is
evil---no it's not" discussion.) So what do you think?  I admit the
#ifdef isn't nice, but if the semantic is OK I'm willing to rework it
into something more pretty.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                              | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                    | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/