linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V13 02/13] ACPI: irq: Allow acpi_gsi_to

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, 28 Jun 2022 21:26:37 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 02/13] ACPI: irq: Allow acpi_gsi_to_irq() to have an
 arch-specific fallback

On 2022/6/27 19:39, Jianmin Lv wrote:
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> 
> It appears that the generic version of acpi_gsi_to_irq() doesn't
> fallback to establishing a mapping if there is no pre-existing
> one while the x86 version does.
> 
> While arm64 seems unaffected by it, LoongArch is relying on the x86
> behaviour. In an effort to prevent new architectures from reinventing
> the proverbial wheel, provide an optional callback that the arch code
> can set to restore the x86 behaviour.
> 
> Hopefully we can eventually get rid of this in the future once
> the expected behaviour has been clarified.
> 
> Reported-by: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>

Why do we need the Reported-by tag here?

> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/irq.c   | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>   include/linux/acpi.h |  1 +
>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

The rest is looking good to me,

Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Tested-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>

Thanks
Hanjun