linux-kernel - Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ

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: <20100308194757.GB17628@isilmar.linta.de>
Date:	Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:47:57 +0100
From:	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN

Hey,

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (re-sending to correct Alan's email address)
> 
> Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
> this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to
> request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag
> in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
> something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected,
> it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make
> use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).

You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that.

Alan, what do you think?

Best,
	Dominik
--
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/