linux-kernel - Re: Use arm64's scheme for registering first-level IRQ handlers on RISC-V

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a06eYpND7mWzUkkABN5xbvzg4ORyPdfUktkEm6-fPyEzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43:45 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        patches@...ups.riscv.org
Subject: Re: Use arm64's scheme for registering first-level IRQ handlers on RISC-V

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
> This patch set has been sitting around for a while, but it got a bit lost in
> the shuffle.  In RISC-V land we currently couple do_IRQ (the C entry point for
> interrupt handling) to our first-level interrupt controller.  While this isn't
> completely crazy (as the first-level interrupt controller is specified by the
> ISA), it is a bit awkward.
>
> This patch set decouples our trap handler from our first-level IRQ chip driver
> by copying what a handful of other architectures are doing.  This does add an
> additional load to the interrupt handling path, but there's a handful of
> performance problems in there that I've been meaning to look at so I don't mind
> adding another one for now.  The advantage is that our irqchip driver is
> decoupled from our arch port, at least at compile time.

Yes, this sounds like a useful cleanup. I also agree with all of Christoph's
suggestions, otherwise it looks good to me.

       Arnd