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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:57:29 +0000 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, "linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>, Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, "rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND [...] > > > err = request_irq(wdt->irq, wdt_interrupt, > > > - IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL, > > > + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL | > > > + IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, > > > > I'm a little confused by this. What happens if the watchdog fires when > > we're actually in the suspended state (when IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts > > aren't guaranteed to be delivered). > > Why wouldn't they be delivered? > > If that's suspend-to-idle, we'll handle them normally. If that's full suspend, > they may not be handled at the last stage (when we run on one CPU with interrupts > off), but that was the case before the wakeup interrupts rework already and I'd > expect it to be taken into account somehow in the existing code (or if it isn't > taken into account, we have a bug, but it is not related to this series). There's no enable_irq_wake(wdt->irq), and I was under the impression this is for full suspend. I agree that if problematic, it's an existing bug. Given Boris's comments in the other thread this may just a minor semantic issue w.r.t. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND vs IRQF_COND_SUSPEND. Thanks, Mark. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists