linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH kernel v4 2/8] genirq/irqdomain: Clean legacy IRQ allocation

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 Nov 2020 21:56:36 +1100
From:   Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kernel v4 2/8] genirq/irqdomain: Clean legacy IRQ
 allocation



On 11/24/20 8:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:20 AM Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru> wrote:
>>
>> There are 10 users of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() and only one - IOAPIC -
>> passes realloc==true. There is no obvious reason for handling this
>> specific case in the generic code.
>>
>> This splits out __irq_domain_alloc_irqs_data() to make it clear what
>> IOAPIC does and makes __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() cleaner.
>>
>> This should cause no behavioral change.
> 
>> +       ret = __irq_domain_alloc_irqs_data(domain, virq, nr_irqs, node, arg, affinity);
>> +       if (ret <= 0)
>>                  goto out_free_desc;
> 
> Was or wasn't 0 considered as error code previously?

Oh. I need to clean this up, the idea is since this does not allocate 
IRQs, this should return error code and not an irq, I'll make this explicit.

> 
>>          return virq;
> 
>>   out_free_desc:
>>          irq_free_descs(virq, nr_irqs);
>>          return ret;
> 

-- 
Alexey