linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy interrupts

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:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:14:59 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "paul.gortmaker@...driver.com" <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        "colin.king@...onical.com" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "michal.simek@...inx.com" <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ravikiran Gummaluri <rgummal@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy
 interrupts

On 09/02/17 12:01, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
>> On 06/02/17 07:03, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
>>> +static struct irq_chip nwl_leg_irq_chip = {
>>> +	.name = "nwl_pcie:legacy",
>>> +	.irq_enable = nwl_unmask_leg_irq,
>>> +	.irq_disable = nwl_mask_leg_irq,
>>
>> You don't need these two if they are implemented in terms of mask/unmask.
> 
> These are being invoked by some drivers other than interrupt flow.
> Ex: drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
> static int ath_reset_internal(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath9k_channel *hchan) 
> {
>          ....
>          disable_irq(sc->irq);
>          tasklet_disable(&sc->intr_tq);
>         ...
>         ...
>         enable_irq(sc->irq);
>         spin_unlock_bh(&sc->sc_pcu_lock);
> }
> For us masking/unmasking is the way to enable/disable interrupts.

And if you looked at the way disable_irq is implemented, you would have
found out that it falls back to masking if there is no disable method,
preserving the semantic you expect.

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