linux-kernel - Re: irq/manage.c wrong comment( ? )

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1210241126590.2756@ionos>
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:28:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	anish kumar <anish198519851985@...il.com>
cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: irq/manage.c wrong comment( ? )

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, anish kumar wrote:

> ping...

Oh well.

> On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 00:32 +0900, anish kumar wrote:?
> > Hello tglx,
> > 
> > I just found the below inconsistency while going through the code.
> > 
> > 
> > kernel/irq/manage.c
> > 
> >     if (new->flags & IRQF_ONESHOT) {
> >         /*
> >          * The thread_mask for the action is or'ed to
> >          * desc->thread_active to indicate that the
> >          * IRQF_ONESHOT thread handler has been woken, but not
> >          * yet finished. The bit is cleared when a thread
> >          * completes. When all threads of a shared interr
> > 
> > Shouldn't this "desc->thread_active" be desc->threads_active ??

That's obvious, right? Please send a proper patch if you think it's
really that important.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/