linux-kernel - Re: [v3.4-rc1] ACPI regression bisected

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]

Message-ID: <4F872C7B.6000106@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:26:51 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3.4-rc1] ACPI regression bisected

>> I feared that. So now is the question whether there is a way to mask
>> the interrupt at the "device" level.

Probably not. Len?

> If not, I could be persuaded to provide a mechanism to force thread
> all interrupts which are on that line, if there's a good argument to
> do so.

Hmm, we could probably just use a work queue for this instead. I guess i 
drank the threaded
interrupt kool aid too much when I did the patch :-)

I'll switch over to a workqueue.

Meanwhile the patch can be just reverted. The patch that needed it 
(delays in EC access to
work around buggy Acer EC) was not merged by  Len so far, so there's 
nothing in tree right
now that relies on the thread.

For 3.4 I think reverting is the right approach.

-Andi

--
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/