linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] PCI: Add tango MSI controller 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:   Wed, 31 May 2017 14:12:58 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Cc:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] PCI: Add tango MSI controller support

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:00:37PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:49:04PM +0200, Mason wrote:
> > On 31/05/2017 19:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
> 
> > > This would be more an IRQ patch than a PCI patch, but if I were
> > > reviewing it, I would look for assurance that *all* the no-op
> > > .irq_set_affinity callbacks were cleaned up, not just those in
> > > drivers/pci/host.
> > 
> > Are you saying the patch is *wrong* if not all "do-nothing"
> > callbacks are cleaned up?
> 
> I'm saying that (1) this probably wouldn't be applied via the PCI
> tree, and (2) if it *were* applied via PCI, I would ask that all the
> no-op callbacks were cleaned up at the same time.
> 
> Huh, that sounds a lot like what I wrote above.  Was I unclear?

I'm afraid this sounded snarky, which isn't my intention.  It seems
like there's a useful patch here, and I didn't want to see it get
ignored for lack of following the usual process.  If this is all
obvious to you, my apologies and please ignore my suggestion.

Bjorn