linux-kernel - Re: [patch 04/16] genirq: Introduce irq_chip.irq_compose_msi

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411181059090.3909@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:02:12 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/16] genirq: Introduce irq_chip.irq_compose_msi_msg()
 to support stacked irqchip

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
> On 2014/11/12 21:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > +int irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg)
> > +{
> > +	struct irq_data *pos = NULL;
> > +
> > +#ifdef	CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> > +	for (; data; data = data->parent_data)
> > +#endif
> > +		if (data->chip && data->chip->irq_compose_msi_msg)
> > +			pos = data;
> > +	if (!pos)
> > +		return -ENOSYS;
> > +
> > +	pos->chip->irq_compose_msi_msg(pos, msg);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Adding message composing routine to struct irq_chip is OK to me, and it should
> be because it is interrupt controllers' duty to compose messages (so that they
> can parse the messages correctly without any pre-defined rules that endpoint
> devices absolutely need not to know).
> However a problem comes out when deciding which parameters should be passed to
> this routine. A message can associate with multiple interrupts, which makes me
> think composing messages for each interrupt is not that appropriate. And we
> can take a look at the new routine irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(). It is called by
> msi_domain_activate() which will be called by irq_domain_activate_irq() in
> irq_startup() for each interrupt descriptor, result in composing a message for
> each interrupt, right? (Unless requiring a judge on the parameter @data when
> implementing the irq_compose_msi_msg() callback that only compose message for
> the first entry of that message. But I really don't like that...)

No, that's not correct. You are looking at some random stale version
of this. The current state of affairs is in 

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git irq/irqdomain

See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/17/764

In activate we write the message, which is the right point to do so.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/