linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 17/33] ARM: davinci: aintc: move timer-specific irq_set

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: <86o97eskq4.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:55:15 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 17/33] ARM: davinci: aintc: move timer-specific irq_set_handler() out of irq.c

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:51:11 +0000,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/02/19 6:30 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 11/02/2019 12:25, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Nobody knows why anymore, but this interrupt has been handled as
> >> +	 * a level irq from the very beginning of davinci support in mainline
> >> +	 * linux.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	irq_set_handler(DAVINCI_INTC_IRQ(IRQ_TINT1_TINT34), handle_level_irq);
> >> +
> > 
> > Now, the real question is: why isn't that set as part of the
> > set_irq_type() callback, instead of hardcoding it in the platform?
> > 
> > This is exactly the kind of information that should come as part of the
> > DT or from the driver as one of the request_irq() flags.
> > 
> > It would save quite a bit of boilerplate code.
> 
> True, but I would keep this series feature/bug compatible with existing
> code. Without that, tracking regression reports will be a nightmare. Its
> a pretty major change already.
> 
> We can (and should) fix this, but I prefer thats done as follow-up patch
> after this series is merged. That way a revert is easy.

And I'd rather see it done already, as a preliminary to this
series. If I'm going to take 35 patches that are mostly churn, surely
we can another couple to fix something that is a real bug.

> BTW, I don't quite see which in-kernel module uses this interrupt. It
> might be some out-of-tree code, or some code that since got removed from
> kernel.

Yet another reason to fix it now.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.