linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] irqchip: Add EcoNet EN751221 INTC

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: <8734f31vhe.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:56:45 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@...ns.fr>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thomas Bogendoerfer
 <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 benjamin.larsson@...exis.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] irqchip: Add EcoNet EN751221 INTC

On Sun, Mar 23 2025 at 04:06, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> So it's my belief that what I'm doing here is standard for 34Kc.
>
> The reason I asked the question in the beginning was because I wanted
> to check my assumptions and know if there's any way I can get SMP
> without writing this dispatcher.

Fair enough. If it just works as is then I don't have any objections and
the question vs. SMP has to answered by the MIPS wizards.

>>>> So this patch clearly should have been tagged with 'RFC'.
>>> Given the patchset works correctly in testing, does this comment
>>> stand?
>> Until the EI/VI issue is resolved so that it either works or cannot
>> happen.
>
> All said, if "depends on !EI && !VI" makes you happy then I'm OK to add it.

It's not about making me happy. I just want to avoid a situation where
this causes hard to diagnose issues.

> Just what I'm afraid of is being asked to find an authoritative answer to my
> question before merging, because if nobody decides to jump in with one
> then this could just be blocked indefinitely.

Nah. If it works the way you implemented it and you can arguably exclude
EI/VI interaction, then there is no reason to delay anything.

Thanks,

        tglx