linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] irqchip: add the Alpine MSIX interrupt controller

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: <56B8ADD3.4030404@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:01:39 +0000
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jason@...edaemon.net,
	tsahee@...apurnalabs.com, rshitrit@...apurnalabs.com,
	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] irqchip: add the Alpine MSIX interrupt controller

On 08/02/16 14:48, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:29:12PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 08/02/16 14:17, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:31:47AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>>>>> +static int alpine_msix_set_affinity(struct irq_data *irq_data,
>>>>> +				    const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ret = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(irq_data, mask, force);
>>>>> +	return ret == IRQ_SET_MASK_OK ? IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE : ret;
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of this exercise? Why can't you just set the affinity
>>>> callback to irq_chip_set_affinity_parent() ?
>>>
>>> That's what done in irq-gic-v2m.c. Besides that, I see no point. I'll
>>> update for v2.
>>
>> That's because there is no need to do another compose_msi_msg/write_msg
>> in msi_domain_set_affinity() once the affinity has been updated at the
>> GIC level. Alternatively, updating the GIC driver to always return
>> IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE would be perfectly acceptable.
> 
> I'm using drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c which is indeed always returning
> IRQ_SET_MASK_OK. I'll make a new patch in the v2 of this series to
> return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE instead in the GIC driver (and then patch
> irq-gic-v2m.c).

/me puzzled. GICv3, but no ITS??? WTF???

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...