[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <058e2e0f-70b4-a506-3ada-2578b99e9163@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 10:07:27 +0300
From: Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>, peterhuewe@....de,
jarkko@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca
Cc: jsnitsel@...hat.com, hdegoede@...hat.com, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
lkp@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, linux@...ewoehner.de,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
l.sanfilippo@...bus.com, lukas@...ner.de, p.rosenberger@...bus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Handle interrupt storm
On 23/05/2023 09:48, Péter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> static void tpm_tis_gen_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>> @@ -804,6 +857,15 @@ static void tpm_tis_gen_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>> chip->flags &= ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
>> }
>>
>> +static void tpm_tis_free_irq_func(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct tpm_tis_data *priv = container_of(work, typeof(*priv), free_irq_work);
>> + struct tpm_chip *chip = priv->chip;
>> +
>> + devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq, chip);
>> + priv->irq = 0;
>
> Should disable_interrupts() be called instead (with the locality
> request/relinquish)?
>
> Is there a chance of a race or is a race matters?
Nevermind this comment, it is good.
--
Péter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists