linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct 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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003242150400.3147@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:25:51 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...abs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"lguest@...abs.org" <lguest@...abs.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into
 struct irq_chip.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:44 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: 
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:19 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Move arch_init_copy_chip_data and arch_free_chip_data into function
> > > > > pointers in struct irq_chip since they operate on irq_desc->chip_data.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure about that. These functions are solely used by x86 and there
> > > > is really no need to generalize them.
> > > 
> > > I thought the idea of struct irq_chip was to allow the potential for
> > > multiple IRQ controllers in a system? Given that it seems that struct
> > > irq_desc->chip_data ought to be available for use by whichever struct
> > > irq_chip is managing a given interrupt. At the moment this is not
> > > possible because we step around the abstraction using these arch_*
> > > methods.
> > 
> > Right, but you have exactly _ONE_ irq_chip associated to an irq_desc,
> > but that same irq_chip can be associated to several irq_descs. So
> > irq_desc->data is there to provide data for the irq_chip functions
> > depending on what irq they handle (e.g. base_address ...). 
> > 
> > irq_desc->chip_data is set when the irq_chip is assigned to the
> > irq_desc.
> > 
> > So there is no point in having functions in irq_chip to set
> > irq_desc->chip_data.
> 
> So how do you know which is the appropriate irq_chip specific function
> to call given an irq_desc that you want to copy/free/migrate? The
> contents of the chip_data pointer will take different forms for
> different irq_chips. The way the generic code is currently structured it
> appears you can't (or at least don't) just do a shallow copy by copying
> the irq_desc->chip_data pointer itself -- you need to do a deep copy
> using a function which understands that type of chip_data.

The design of sparse_irq or to be honest the lack of design grew that
crap and it's not only this detail which is a nightmare. That pointer
should probably be simply copied. Either that or if the chip data
require to be node bound we need something along the line:

struct sparse_irq_chip_data {
       void *data;
       void (*copy)(...);
       void (*free)(...);
};

and a corresponding field in irq_desc.

I'm looking into sparse_irq right now anyway because it has other way
more serious short comings.

> How is this operation different to having pointers in irq_chip for
> enabling/disabling/masking interrupts for each irq_chip?

Because that's the purpose of the irq_chip perhaps ?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/