linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip/sifive-plic: Separate irq

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: <5bc4010161af7bef8e3c30e08888ec82@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 09:14:30 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip/sifive-plic: Separate irq_chip for muiltiple
 PLIC instances

On 2020-05-16 17:38, Anup Patel wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>

[...]

>> I *have* given you a way to implement that in a better way. But again, 
>> I'd
>> rather you *don't* do it for the reason I have outlined above.
> 
> I explored kernel/irq/proc.c and we can achieve what this patch does
> by implementing irq_print_chip() callback of "struct irq_chip" so we
> certainly don't need separate "struct irq_chip" for each PLIC instance.
> 
> I will implement irq_print_chip() callback in v2 series.

You still haven't explained *why* you need to have this change.
As it stands, I'm not prepared to take it.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...