linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 May 2011 11:24:22 +0800
From:	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
	"JBeulich@...ell.com" <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating
 them

> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@...utronix.de]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:37 PM
> 
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > yes, with your patch this issue disappears, since you explicitly
> > > make mask/unmask as a nop for xen_percpu_chip, which effectively
> > > avoids them from undesired unmask when doing the migration. Though
> > > it works, it's not intuitive as to me it's an workaround to make Xen chip
> implementation adapting to specific fixup_irqs logic.
> >
> > I have been tring to follow the example of existing supported drivers.
> > The only x86 driver I could find that uses handle_percpu_irq is uv_irq
> > that does exatly the same thing.
> 
> Which is a good enough argument to make that change at the common code
> level instead of having fancy workarounds here and there.
> 

So Thomas, what's your suggestion to continue here? Is my original patch to skip
percpu irq in common code a good option to go, or you want a cleaner code in 
other form? Once it's clear I'll discuss with Stefano e.g. possibly merge with his
cleanup patch series. :-)

Thanks
Kevin
--
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/