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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:38:54 +0100 From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] irq/domain: add a new callback to domain ops czw., 12 mar 2020 o 09:15 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> napisał(a): > > niedz., 8 mar 2020 o 18:59 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> napisał(a): > > > > niedz., 8 mar 2020 o 14:51 Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> napisał(a): > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:12:37 +0100 > > > Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> > > > > > > > > Add the remove() callback to irq_domain_ops which can be used to > > > > automatically dispose of any host data associated with the domain when > > > > irq_domain_remove() is called. > > > > > > I have a hard time buying this. Whatever data that is associated to the > > > domain is already owned known by whoever created the domain the first > > > place. > > > > > > Since the expected use case is that whoever created the domain also > > > destroys it, the caller is already in a position to do its own cleanup, > > > and we don't need any of this. > > > > > > So please explain what you are trying to achieve here. > > > > > > > I'm mainly trying to remove irq_domain_remove_sim() and make it > > possible to destroy the interrupt simulator domain with regular > > irq_domain_remove(). If you prefer that we retain this routine as is, > > I can limit this series to the first two patches, but I assumed the > > fewer functions in the interface, the better. If you have a different > > idea on how to do this - please let me know too. > > > > Bartosz > > While this is being discussed - are the first two patches > uncontroversial enough to make it into v5.7? > > Bartosz Gentle ping after another week. Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists