[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160128095955.GA12884@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:59:56 +0000
From: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: fix trigger flags check for shared irqs
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:45:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Brian Starkey wrote:
>
>> For shared interrupts, if one requester passes in any IRQF_TRIGGER_*
>> flags whilst another doesn't, __setup_irq() can erroneously fail.
>>
>> The no-flags case should be treated as "already configured", so change
>> __setup_irq() to only check that the flags match if any have been
>> provided.
>
>What happens if that "already configured", i.e. the default setting, is
>conflicting with the newly requested interrupt?
>
>I rather prefer the failure than the resulting silent wreckage.
>
Yes, I agree that would be best avoided. It seems to me that this case
is actually handled a bit lower down:
} else if (new->flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK) {
unsigned int nmsk = new->flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK;
unsigned int omsk = irq_settings_get_trigger_mask(desc);
if (nmsk != omsk)
/* hope the handler works with current trigger mode */
pr_warning("irq %d uses trigger mode %u; requested %u\n",
irq, nmsk, omsk);
}
Perhaps that should be louder/fatal?
Best regards,
-Brian
>Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists