linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support

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: <053a37f4-aa10-46ea-f477-8ae55bb5773f@st.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:40:17 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, <bruherrera@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts
 support

Thomas,

On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> Well, you just used some function in some context which is not
>>>> relevant to
>>>> the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no
>>>> value.
>>>
>> A gentle reminder ping...
>> If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain.

Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just 
want to be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 
domains: EXTI domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one).

There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain 
(actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also 
".free" callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ?
If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by 
removing .free callbacks (in both domain).

Regards
Alex

>
> I was not talking about the .free callback in general. I was talking about
> the masking. But yes, if the thing is otherwise a NOOP, then you can spare
> it completely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx
>