linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of

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:	Sat, 3 Dec 2011 02:40:18 +0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
To:	Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:34:02AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 07:19:17PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > Drivers should not use NO_IRQ; moreover, some architectures don't
> > > > > have it nowadays. '0' is the 'no irq' case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > In case if we don't want a "band-aid fix" for 3.2, here is the patch
> > > that just does the proper fix (w/ a risk to break minor architectures).
> > 
> > This is now broken on ARM where, for good or bad, NO_IRQ currently is
> > used and is -1.
> > 
> > How do we resolve it?
> 
> One option is to test this patch on a board that is now broken:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/10/290

Oh, actually, reading my own patch:

"ARM defines NO_IRQ to -1, but OF code relies on IRQ domains support,
 which returns correct ('0') value in 'no irq' case. So everything
 should be fine."


I forgot that on ARM we use IRQ domains, so ARM should be OK.

Do you really see any breakage, and if so, what board?

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
--
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/