linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request

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: <20200301061327.GA5229@afzalpc>
Date:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 11:43:27 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 02:26:33PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:

> BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"?

setup_irq() was used in olden days, nowadays request_irq(). Though
there are exceptions of trying to use setup_irq() even recently, but
there has been pushback when people notice it like Thomas had done
[1], and i saw recently one in mips smp support series & suggested not
to use it (that code iiuc they had it out of upstream for a long time).

So existence of setup_irq() in general i have considered to be legacy
code.

> And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide 
> semantic patch?

The way i came up with this series is that while trying to understand
irq internals, came across [1], so then decided to do cleanup and i
thought scripting it would make it easy & also had been wanting to
get familiar w/ cocci, so decided to try it, but also realized that i
cannot fully automate it (Julia said my patch is okay, so i felt cocci
cannot fully automate w/o investing considerable effort in cocci), so
even w/ this v2, there are lot of manual changes, though cocci made it
easier.

> I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I 
> misunderstood.

And Thomas suggested to make improvements over script generated o/p [2]
and only consider scripting as an initial first step. So the way i am
making changes now is to take suggestions from Thomas to be applied
treewide, at the same time also take care of suggestions from
arch/subsytem maintainer/mailing list in the relevant patches, since
arch maintainers are the ones owning it.

Sometimes had a feeling as though the changes in this series is akin
to cutting the foot to fit the shoe ;), but still went ahead as it was
legacy code, easier & less error prone. But now based on the overall
feedback, to proceed, i had to change.

Regards
afzal

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87sgiwma3x.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/