linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] spi: lantiq: Synchronize interrupt handlers and transfers

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:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:20:21 +0800
From:   Dilip Kota <eswara.kota@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     robh@...nel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel.schwierzeck@...il.com, hauke@...ke-m.de,
        andriy.shevchenko@...el.com, cheol.yong.kim@...el.com,
        chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com, qi-ming.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] spi: lantiq: Synchronize interrupt handlers and
 transfers


On 4/28/2020 6:00 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:39:06PM +0800, Dilip Kota wrote:
>
>> Do you suggest to use different ISRs for multiple interrupt lines and single
>> ISR for single interrupt line? I see, this results in writing repetitive
>> code lines.
> It looks like the shared case is mainly a handler that calls the two
> other handlers?
Yes.
>
>> Does single ISR looks erroneous! Please let me know.
> The change was not entirely clear, I was having trouble convincing
> myself that all the transformations were OK partly because I kept on
> finding little extra changes in there and partly because there were
> several things going on.  In theory it could work.

You want me to split this in to multiple patches?

Regards,
Dilip