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: <20190215134733.GA21208@basecamp>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:47:33 -0500
From:   Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        marc.zyngier@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        nicolas.dechesne@...aro.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] mfd: pm8xxx: disassociate old virq if hwirq
 mapping already exists

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 09:51:26PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > index 8eb2528793f9..2f99a98ccee5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > @@ -380,6 +380,12 @@ static void pm8xxx_irq_domain_map(struct pm_irq_chip *chip,
> >                                   struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int irq,
> >                                   irq_hw_number_t hwirq, unsigned int type)
> >  {
> > +       unsigned int old_virq;
> > +
> > +       old_virq = irq_find_mapping(domain, hwirq);
> > +       if (old_virq)
> > +               irq_domain_disassociate(domain, old_virq);
> 
> Is it possible to pass 'true' for the 'realloc' argument to
> __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() and then this disassociate change isn't
> needed?

The kernel doc for __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() says that the realloc
parameter is mainly to support legacy IRQs. I don't think its a good
idea to add new code that'll stay past the end of this patch series
on top of that legacy interface.

Brian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ