linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160122101511.GP6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:15:11 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:56:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> We really should ignore that sillyness and if people complain, make them
> complain to their HW vendor. That's the only way this crap will go away.
> 
> If we just keep on supporting this completely pointless nonsense the HW folks
> will just not fix it.
> 
> We've been successful in the past to 'educate' hw people by making features
> not available for mindless designs.
> 
> In this case we still support the feature, but it might be suboptimal. The
> real interesting ports on that platform are MSI anyway, so I really couldn't
> care less.

I'm fine with not supporting shared interrupts, as long as the thing is
consistent.