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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:44:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

> 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).

Free will be called when a interrupt in the child domain is torn down,
i.e. when irq_domain_free_irqs() is called. And it will be called for both
domains like the alloc callback is invoked on both domains via
irq_domain_alloc_irqs().

Thanks,

	tglx