linux-kernel - Re: x86: interrupt routing question

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1317231181.10997.72.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:33:01 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: interrupt routing question

On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:26 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> >
> > For the next sod who gets curious about irq routing behavior difference,
> > and tries to ask google.
> 
> Thanks for following up on this!
> 
> So, having read the fine manual, do you think this is a Linux bug, or
> something that could be improved in Linux, either by changing the
> behavior or making the dmesg more informative?  It certainly cost you
> a lot of time, and it'd be nice if we could save the next person :)

It didn't take long at all after I stopped trying to ask google and
acpidump, and went to the source.  I don't think it's a bug, but I only
_started_ to RTFM, so whether it could be improved is a question I can't
begin to answer.. and kinda hope to never be able to answer :)

	-Mike

--
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/