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  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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:41:26 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <>
To:     Marc Zyngier <>,
        Agustin Vega-Frias <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
CC:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "ACPI Devel Maling List" <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Len Brown <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Jason Cooper <>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
        Timur Tabi <>,
        "Christopher Covington" <>,
        Andy Gross <>, <>,
        Jon Masters <>, Mark Salter <>,
        Mark Langsdorf <>,
        Al Stone <>, <>,
        Graeme Gregory <>,
        Charles Garcia Tobin <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver

On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
>>>> the conditional check on the first patch?
>>>> How can we move forward on this series?
>>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
>>> which hasn't happened yet.
>> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
>> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
>> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
>> those.
> I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
> for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
> going on that front.

Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and
an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion
of removing  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as
I have such machines.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists