linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: iproc: use unique name for irq chip

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:26:54 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>,
        Li Jin <li.jin@...adcom.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: iproc: use unique name for irq chip

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:14 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 08:30:50 +0100,
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > CC MarcZ
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:03 AM Chris Packham
> > <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> > > Use the dev_name(dev) for the irqc->name so that we get unique names
> > > when we have multiple instances of this driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
> >
> > A while ago, Marc Zyngier pointed out that the irq_chip .name field
> > should contain the device's class name, not the instance's name.
> > Hence the current code is correct?
>
> Thanks Geert for looping me in. The main reasons why I oppose this
> kind of "let's show as much information as we can in /proc/interrupts"
> are:
>
> - It clutters the output badly: the formatting of this file, which is
>   bad enough when you have a small number of CPUs, becomes unreadable
>   when you have a large number of them *and* stupidly long strings
>   that only make sense on a given platform.
>
> - Like it or not, /proc is ABI. We don't change things randomly there
>   without a good reason, and debugging isn't one of them.
>
> - Debug information belongs to debugfs, where we already have plenty
>   of stuff (see CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS). I'd rather we improve
>   this infrastructure if needed, rather than add platform specific
>   hacks.
>
> </rant>

I have reverted the patch.

Yours,
Linus Walleij