linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc: 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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 16:36:37 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Vitaly Bordug <vitb@...nel.crashing.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()

Hi Michael Ellerman,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:

> request_irq() is preferred over setup_irq(). Invocations of setup_irq()
> occur after memory allocators are ready.
> 
> Per tglx[1], setup_irq() existed in olden days when allocators were not
> ready by the time early interrupts were initialized.
> 
> Hence replace setup_irq() by request_irq().
> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos
> 
> Signed-off-by: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>

This patch is seen in next-test branch for last 4-5 days, i don't know
exactly how powerpc workflow happens, so a question - this would be
appear in linux-next soon right ? (for last 4-5 days i had been daily
checking -next, but not appearing there).

Sorry for the query for this trivial patch, i am asking because Thomas
had mentioned [1] to get setup_irq() cleanup thr' respective
maintainers (earlier it was part of tree-wide series), check -next after
-rc6 & resubmit ignored ones to him, this patch is neither in -next,
neither ignored, so i am at a loss what to do :(

And i would prefer to let each patch go thr' respective maintainers so
that only least patches has to be sent to Thomas. Bigger problem is that
core removal patch of setup_irq() can be sent to him only after making
sure that it's tree-wide usage has been removed.

Regards
afzal


[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87y2somido.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de