linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq: Pass desc to __irq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803261741490.1585@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:49:27 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Pass desc to __irq_free instead of irq number

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:43:27AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> You still claim there is only one instance, I assume that's because the branch
> that is pulled into next (tip/auto-latest) is autogenerated and contains some
> cruft?

The branch is autogenerated and reset on top of Linus head on a regular
base and that's what I looked at. It does not contain any cruft at all. It
contains a single instance of that patch, i.e. 83ac4ca943af

The irq/core branch was rebased once and the commit in question was
cherry-picked so it ended up with a different sha1. It probably was in next
with the old sha1 for a day or two, but it's definitely not in
tip/auto-latest.

Thanks,

	tglx