linux-kernel - Re: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler configurable for regmap_add_irq

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:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:06:18 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Yi Zhang <yizhang.mrvl@...il.com>
Cc:	Yi Zhang <yizhang@...vell.com>, hongfeng@...vell.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhouqiao@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler
 configurable for regmap_add_irq_chip()?

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:15:21PM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote:

> I met a scenario:
> As soon as the interrupt is triggered, a wakelock is needed to be held
> until the threaded handler finishes,
> I think we may hold it in the primary interrupt handler, but now it's
> NULL by default;

This sounds like something we should just support in the core, though to
be honest I'd expect the interrupt core to hold a wakelock itself during
interrupt processing.  If we're doing it in regmap then allowing the
caller to set a wakelock to hold seems better than making them all write
the code to take and release it.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)