linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] irqchip: armada-370-xp: re-enable per-CPU interrupts at resume time

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:50:35 +0200
From:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] irqchip: armada-370-xp: re-enable per-CPU
 interrupts at resume time

Hello,

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:46:00 +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

> > +	/* Re-enable per-CPU interrupts that were enabled before suspend */
> > +	nirqs = (readl(main_int_base + ARMADA_370_XP_INT_CONTROL) >> 2) & 0x3ff;
> > +	for (irq = 0; irq < nirqs; irq++) {
> 
> Actually we could reduce this loop by using
> ARMADA_370_XP_MAX_PER_CPU_IRQS, as we know that we can't have more per
> cpu irq. 

Indeed. I can fix that up in the next version.

> > +		struct irq_data *data;
> > +		int virq;
> > +
> > +		virq = irq_linear_revmap(armada_370_xp_mpic_domain, irq);
> > +		if (virq == 0)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		data = irq_get_irq_data(virq);
> > +
> > +		if (irq != ARMADA_370_XP_TIMER0_PER_CPU_IRQ)
> > +			continue;
> 
> So eventually you only manage the timer IRQs?
> 
> If it is intentional you could it differently, but I wonder why you don't
> enable again the other percpu IRQ.

The idea is to have the same condition at the one used in the
->resume() hook.

In the end, it should be using the is_percpu_irq() function as is done
in linux-next in the ->resume() function. But since this patch is
(hopefully) aimed at 4.3, I've for now kept the same logic as the
current ->resume() function.

> The following chunk will conflict with "irqchip: armada-370-xp: Rework
> per-cpu interrupts handling" which is in Linux next. But as this patch
> is for 4.3, you can't do anything...

Indeed. I intentionally based this series on 4.3-rc, because it's
fixing a regression introduced between 4.2 and 4.3-rc, and therefore as
such should be fixed before 4.3 is released if possible (though I
understand it's already -rc6 time so maybe a bit late).

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/