| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:55:08 +0200 From: David Jander <david.jander@...tonic.nl> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why does handle_simple_irq() require IRQ's to be disabled? Dear Thomas, On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:26 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, David Jander wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:18:41 +0200 (CEST) > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote: > > > handle_nested_irq() is your friend. > > > > Thanks! This worked without disabling IRQ's. > > One last question, though: > > > > I set up the handler using irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, ..., > > handle_simple_irq); > > From the interrupt thread, I call handle_nested_irq(). Is it OK, that in > > this case, the defined handler function (handle_simple_irq) is not used? > > Does this still make sense? Wouldn't calling just irq_set_chip() be enough > > here (it seems to work correctly)? > > It should be enough. Though you should mark the demuxed interrupts > with irq_set_nested_thread(irqnr, true). That avoids that you create > extra threads for the demuxed interrupts which are never used. Cool! Now the disturbingly big list of kernel threads is gone :-) Thanks a lot! -- David Jander Protonic Holland. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists