linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: new RISC-V SBI timer driver

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: <20180727144148.GA29626@lst.de>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:41:48 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@...-tech.org>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "shorne@...il.com" <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: new RISC-V SBI timer driver

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Should we follow the same prefix for these functions?
> either timer_riscv* or riscv_timer* ?
>
> Apologies for overlooking this in my timer patch as well.

riscv_timer_* sounds saner to me, I can update that.

>> +	struct clock_event_device *evdev = this_cpu_ptr(&riscv_clock_event);
>> +
>
> The comment about the purpose of clearing the interrupt in the original 
> patch is removed here. If that's intentional, it's fine.
>
> I thought having that comment helps understanding the distinction between 
> clearing the timer interrupt in SBI call & here.

Yes, that was intentional.  But given that I don't even understand why
not using an ABI for architectural interrupt source enable/disable maybe
I'm confused and should revisit that decision.