linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: irqchip: mxs: add Alpascale ASM9260 support

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, 21 Sep 2015 11:06:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
cc:	Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jason@...edaemon.net,
	Oleksij Rempel <external.Oleksij.Rempel@...bosch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: irqchip: mxs: add Alpascale ASM9260
 support

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Uff... in one of earliest reviews i was asked to add lock..
> > I also was asked to add asm9260 to some existing driver. Not sure if it
> > is still making sense.
> 
> Adding or removing a lock is not about what people ask you to do. It is
> about requirements dictated by either the HW (you need to perform
> a given sequence atomically with respect to another code sequence), the
> kernel, or both. So I'd like to understand what is the underlying
> reason for this lock. It is not disabling interrupts, so it could end
> up being called in an interrupt context -> deadlock.

The callback is always called with interrupts disabled, so that's a
non issue. But still, the rationale for that lock is unclear.

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/