linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: dln2: fix issue when an IRQ is unmasked then enabled

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, 5 Jan 2015 20:42:48 +1000
From:	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: dln2: fix issue when an IRQ is unmasked then enabled

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Octavian Purdila
> > <octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As noticed during suspend/resume operations, the IRQ can be unmasked
> >> then disabled in suspend and eventually enabled in resume, but without
> >> being unmasked.
> >>
> >> The current implementation does not take into account interactions
> >> between mask/unmask and enable/disable interrupts, and thus in the
> >> above scenarios the IRQs remain unactive.
> >>
> >> To fix this we removed the enable/disable operations as they fallback
> >> to mask/unmask anyway.
> >>
> >> We also remove the pending bitmaks as it is already done in irq_data
> >> (i.e. IRQS_PENDING).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
> >
> > Patch applied for fixes.
>
> Bah now that I see there are several versions of the patch set
> floating around and also MFD patches I don't quite understand
> how acute this is or how it's to be applied.

Hi Linus,

Oops I did not noticed you applied the first version. It should not
matter anyway since I did not make any modifications to the GPIO
patches in the second version - I just doubled checked it now.

>
> - Are these regression fixes or nice to have for next kernel
>  release?
>

The first patch is a fix. The second is more of a cleanup patch.

> - Are the GPIO patches independent of the MFD patch?
>

Yes, the GPIO patches are independent of the MFD patches.
--
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/