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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B4D5329.7050107@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:59:21 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC:	x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86

On 01/12/2010 07:59 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.

There was a debate on this a long time ago, and the outcome was that IRQ
0 is invalid, across the kernel, and that it is up to each architecture
to carry exceptions (like IRQ 0 for the timer interrupt in x86.)  Hinc
dictat Linus, so you would have to convince him before any of the arch
maintainer could realistically even consider this change.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/