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: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:35:01 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@....com>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>, Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...el.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> Subject: Re: [patch RFC 30/38] PCI/MSI: Allow to disable arch fallbacks On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:28:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 15:07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> + * The arch hooks to setup up msi irqs. Default functions are implemented > >> + * as weak symbols so that they /can/ be overriden by architecture specific > >> + * code if needed. > >> + * > >> + * They can be replaced by stubs with warnings via > >> + * CONFIG_PCI_MSI_DISABLE_ARCH_FALLBACKS when the architecture fully > >> + * utilizes direct irqdomain based setup. > > If not, it seems like it'd be nicer to have the burden on the arches > > that need/want to use arch-specific code instead of on the arches that > > do things generically. > > Right, but they still share the common code there and some of them > provide only parts of the weak callbacks. I'm not sure whether it's a > good idea to copy all of this into each affected architecture. > > Or did you just mean that those architectures should select > CONFIG_I_WANT_THE CRUFT instead of opting out on the fully irq domain > based ones? Yes, that was my real question -- can we confine the cruft in the crufty arches? If not, no big deal. Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists