linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt

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:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:55:53 +0530
From:	Vinayak Kale <vkale@....com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, patches <patches@....com>,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	jcm@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 11/06/13 04:07, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> This patch series adds support to handle interrupt registration/deregistration
>> in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu.
>>
>> Patches in this patch series were previously sent out as separate patches [1].
>> This patch series incorporates comments/fixes suggested for original patches.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/205888.html
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/204414.html
>>
>> Vinayak Kale (2):
>>   genirq: error reporting in request_percpu_irq() and
>>     request_threaded_irq()
>>   arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
>>
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c |  109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  kernel/irq/manage.c            |   12 +++--
>>  2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>
>
> What ever happened to the approach here[1]? It doesn't look very nice to
> have to request the irq first as a per-cpu interrupt and then try as a
> non-percpu interrupt when genirq already knows if its per-cpu or not.
>
> [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html
I don't see any discussions on mailing list on approach taken in above patch.

IMO, if fixing up minor error reporting in existing functions can do
the job then we should avoid adding a new function.
--
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/