linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/24] PCI/MSI: Provide MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSI_MASK

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: <87sexbu3yk.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 14:52:03 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Shivamurthy Shastri
 <shivamurthy.shastri@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, maz@...nel.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
 shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, vidyas@...dia.com,
 ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
 kevin.tian@...el.com, nipun.gupta@....com, den@...inux.co.jp,
 andrew@...n.ch, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
 sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
 rafael@...nel.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
 lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, jgg@...lanox.com, ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org,
 robin.murphy@....com, lpieralisi@...nel.org, nm@...com, kristo@...nel.org,
 vkoul@...nel.org, okaya@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
 andersson@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, yuzenghui@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/24] PCI/MSI: Provide MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSI_MASK_PARENT

On Fri, Jun 14 2024 at 11:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:23:42PM +0200, Shivamurthy Shastri wrote:
>> Most ARM(64) PCI/MSI domains mask and unmask in the parent domain after or
>> before the PCI mask/unmask operation takes place. So there are more than a
>> dozen of the same wrapper implementation all over the place.
>
> Is this an opportunity to clean up all these wrappers?  If you could
> mention an example or two here, maybe somebody would be motivated to
> come back and simplify the existing wrappers to take advantage of this
> new flag?

The wrappers go away once the relevant MSI implementations are converted
over to the new scheme/

See patch 7 for an example: its_[un]mask_msi_irq() are gone.

Thanks,

        tglx