linux-kernel - Re: About irq_create_affinity_masks() for a platform device 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f680ca16-8c33-a632-8777-084d424d456b@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:55:00 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        chenxiang <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: About irq_create_affinity_masks() for a platform device driver

Hi Thomas,

> 
>> And if we were to go this way, then we don't need to add the pointer in
>> struct platform_device to hold affinity mask descriptors as we're using
>> them immediately. Or even have a single function to do it all in the irq
>> code (create the masks and update the affinity desc).
>>
>> And since we're just updating the masks, I figure we shouldn't need to
>> add acpi_irq_get_count(), which I invented to get the irq count (without
>> creating the IRQ mapping).
> Yes, you can create and apply the masks after setting up the interrupts.
> 

So my original concern was that the changes here would be quite 
disruptive, but that does not look to be the case.

I need a couple of more things to go into the kernel before I can safely 
switch to use managed interrupts in the LLDD, like "blk-mq: improvement 
CPU hotplug" series, so I will need to wait on that for the moment.

Thanks,
John