linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] genirq: Support mixing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF

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, 15 Dec 2014 22:45:35 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] genirq: Support mixing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF_SUSPEND on shared irqs

On Monday, December 15, 2014 05:15:48 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The current implementation forbid sharing an irq line on devices that do
> not request the same behavior on suspend/resume (controlled via the
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF_FORCE_RESUME flags).

IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is practically only for timers and IPIs now.  Any other
usages are strongly discouraged.

> Add a flag (IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION) to specify that you don't want to be
> called in suspend mode, and that you already took care of disabling the
> interrupt on the device side.
> 
> The suspend_device_irq will now move actions specifying the
> IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION into a temporary list so that they won't be called
> when the interrupt is triggered, and resume_irq_actions restores the
> suspended actions into the active action list.

Why is the current way of handling wakeup interrupts not sufficient?


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/