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: <CAHp75Ve5x3xmHpC4Ku4OXiXW6UHQqi1vLyzE7XSBhh+=zeeGgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:28:24 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	"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

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington 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.

>>>> -               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.

> Is Chris' interpretation correct?

Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.

> 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.

Is it a question?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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/