linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] irq/core changes for v3.5

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:	Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:26:24 +0300
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] irq/core changes for v3.5

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Thinking more about it, it's probably the best thing to simply force
> the IRQF_ONESHOT flag if it's missing.

No, that's just crazy.

Now you make broken shit code work, and then you break the *correct*
code that didn't want threading and didn't set IRQF_ONESHOT.

Just face it: if somebody doesn't have an interrupt-time function
pointer, they need to rethink their code. It's a mistake. It's broken
shit.

Why pander to crap? What is the advantage of allowing people to think
that they don't need an interrupt-time function? It's a fundamentaly
broken model, since it *cannot* work tgether with another driver that
wants to have the normal semantics and happens to share the irq.

               Linus
--
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/