linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern

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: <20131009155413.GD22495@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:13 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Andy King <acking@...are.com>, Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux390@...ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@...com,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-driver@...gic.com,
	Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts
 enablement pattern

Hello, Alexander.

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > If there are many which duplicate the above pattern, it'd probably be
> > worthwhile to provide a helper?  It's usually a good idea to reduce
> > the amount of boilerplate code in drivers.
> 
> I wanted to limit discussion in v1 to as little changes as possible.
> I 'planned' those helper(s) for a separate effort if/when the most
> important change is accepted and soaked a bit.

The thing is doing it this way generates more churns and noises.  Once
the simpler ones live behind a wrapper which can be built on the
existing interface, we can have both reduced cost and more latitude on
the complex cases.

> > If we do things this way, it breaks all drivers using this interface
> > until they're converted, right?
> 
> Right. And the rest of the series does it.

Which breaks bisection which we shouldn't do.

> > Also, it probably isn't the best idea
> > to flip the behavior like this as this can go completely unnoticed (no
> > compiler warning or anything, the same function just behaves
> > differently).  Maybe it'd be a better idea to introduce a simpler
> > interface that most can be converted to?
> 
> Well, an *other* interface is a good idea. What do you mean with the
> simpler here?

I'm still talking about a simpler wrapper for common cases, which is
the important part anyway.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/