linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] powerpc/irq: Add helper to set regs->softe

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:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:54:24 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, msuchanek@...e.de,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] powerpc/irq: Add helper to set regs->softe



Le 09/02/2021 à 08:49, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of February 9, 2021 4:18 pm:
>>
>>
>> Le 09/02/2021 à 02:11, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of February 9, 2021 1:10 am:
>>>> regs->softe doesn't exist on PPC32.
>>>>
>>>> Add irq_soft_mask_regs_set_state() helper to set regs->softe.
>>>> This helper will void on PPC32.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> You could do the same with the kuap_ functions to change some ifdefs
>>> to IS_ENABLED.
>>>
>>> That's just my preference but if you prefer this way I guess that's
>>> okay.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's also my preference on the long term.
>>
>> Here it is ephemeral, I have a follow up series implementing interrupt exit/entry in C and getting
>> rid of all the assembly kuap hence getting rid of those ifdefs.
> 
> I thought it might have been because you hate ifdef more tha most :)
>   
>> The issue I see when using IS_ENABLED() is that you have to indent to the right, then you interfere
>> with the file history and 'git blame'
> 
> Valid point if it's just going to indent back the other way in your next
> series.
> 
>> Thanks for reviewing my series and looking forward to your feedback on my series on the interrupt
>> entry/exit that I will likely release later today.
> 
> Cool, I'm eager to see them.
> 

Hi Nick, have you been able to look at it ?

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/cover/cover.1612864003.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/

Thanks
Christophe