linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+

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: <CAFEAcA8sOKOs6iQBu7iBdFWW8GymTGR8XSXOceorxzoEoyddNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:23:58 +0100
From:	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] SCSI bus failures with qemu-arm in kernel 3.8+

On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so,
> we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up.
> Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today
> I would rather have today's problems resolved and bother about tomorrow's
> when they show up.

Conceptually the two parts go together: rely on correct
irq routing, tell qemu we rely on correct irq routing.
It's only one extra line...

-- PMM
--
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/