linux-kernel - Re: [ 026/105] ACPI: EC: Make the GPE storm threshold a module parameter

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: <20121029000440.GE6083@elie.Belkin>
Date:	Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:04:40 -0700
From:	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [ 026/105] ACPI: EC: Make the GPE storm threshold a module
 parameter

Ben Hutchings wrote:

> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
[...]
> commit a520d52e99b14ba7db135e916348f12f2a6e09be upstream.
>
> The Linux EC driver includes a mechanism to detect GPE storms,
> and switch from interrupt-mode to polling mode.  However, polling
> mode sometimes doesn't work, so the workaround is problematic.
> Also, different systems seem to need the threshold for detecting
> the GPE storm at different levels.

Not an objection, but this is a weird parameter.  How many false
interrupts per transaction should be expected?  Is there some fact
about the hardware or firmware that makes this a well defined number
on each machine?

Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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/