linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] PCI: mvebu: Implement support for legacy INTx interrupts

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: <874k6gvkhz.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:31:36 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] PCI: mvebu: Implement support for legacy INTx interrupts

On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:20:44 +0000,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 16:27:44 +0000
> Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > You are completely missing my point. I'm talking about data
> > structures, you're talking about interrupts. You have this:
> > 
> > struct mvebu_pcie_port {
> >        // Tons of stuff
> >        struct irq_chip intx_chip;
> > };
> > 
> > What I want you to do is:
> > 
> > struct mvebu_pcie_port {
> >        // Tons of stuff
> > };
> > 
> > static struct irq_chip intx_chip = {
> > 	.name		= "INTx",
> > 	.irq_mask	= mvebu_pcie_intx_irq_mask,
> > 	.irq_unmask	= mvebu_pcie_intx_irq_unmask;
> > };
> > 
> > That's it. No more, no less.
> > 
> > 	M.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, but struct irq_chip contains a dynamic member,
>   struct device *parent_device;
> Isn't that used? Or are you planning to kill it?

Indeed, and I am definitely planning to kill it. This is the wrong
place for this stuff, and I want it gone. There are thankfully very
few users of this misfeature.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.