linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

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]

Message-ID: <5683DAD3.4080006@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:23:31 -0500
From:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, jcm@...hat.com,
	helgaas@...nel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

Hi Bjorn, Andy;

On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
> 
> On 12/09/2015 12:09 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> +       if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>>>>> +           polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>>>> +               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>>>> +       else
>>>>> +               penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
>>> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
>>> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>>>
>> Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are
>> changing lines like above?
>>
>> If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now,
>> acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist.
>>
>>> -               acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>> +              acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> 
> I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing
> the penalty variable.
> 
> Christopher Covington
> 

Andy,
Is Chris' interpretation correct?

BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.

Bjorn,
Is there any other question you need me to address on this patch? 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/