linux-kernel - Re: [patch 46/47] powerpc: Use new irq allocator

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]

Date:	Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:04:50 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [patch 46/47] powerpc: Use new irq allocator



On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> > 
> > >> That would make things much cleaner and in fact move one large step
> > >> toward being able to make powerpc virq scheme generic, which seems to be
> > >> a good idea from what I've heard :-)
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > 
> > I'm not certain about making the ppc virq scheme generic.  Maybe it is
> > just my distorted impression but I have the understanding that ppc irq
> > numbers mean nothing and are totally unstable whereas on x86 irq numbers
> > in general are stable (across kernel upgrades and changes in device
> > probe order) and the irq number has a useful hardware meaning.  Which
> > means you don't have to go through several layers of translation tables
> > to figure out which hardware pin you are talking about.
> 
> Nobody is forced to use it, but we have already several instances of
> virq mapping implementations in arch/*. Having a generic
> infrastructure for this makes a ton of sense.

Forgot to say: With MSI and dynamic allocated irqs the stable numbers
are completely meaningless. So where is the point ?

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/