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 15:16:26 +0000
From:   Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....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.
> 
Yes I did see, but this fall back requires extra "IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY" flag to be set to each virq. 
 
Bharat