linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:29:16 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Sebastian Reichel
<sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> So Sebastian, can you test if it's ok to revert just the __setup_irq()
>> part, but leave the smaller part in __free_irq() that just moves the
>> irq_release_resources() around at freeing time?
>
> Looking at my patch it implements what you describe (by coincidence,
> since git revert could not do a clean revert) as far as I can see.

Heh, yes, I didn't look at your patch as much as I looked at the
revert description.

And yes, going back to look at your patch it looks like it only
reverts the __setup_irq() parts.

Waiting for Thomas to comment on this whole thing..

                Linus