netdev - Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API

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: <20090417134137.77b5dbd7@hskinnemoen-d830>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:41:37 +0200
From:	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	michael@...e-electrons.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API

David Miller wrote:
> From: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:50:11 +0200
> 
> > No, therefore, I'd prefer local_irq_save() :-)
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is a specific reason driver's use
> disable_irq() rather than disabling local cpu IRQs.

Looks like most if not all of the ARM drivers use local_irq_save()...I
couldn't figure out what etherh does from a quick scan.

> I just can't remember it at the moment.
> 
> And there absolutely must be a reason, because disable_irq()
> is a lot more expensive.

Sounds like another reason _not_ to use it ;-)

Well, if you're really sure about this, I guess you might as well go
ahead and apply it. But it feels wrong to Ack the patch when I don't
know the reason for using disable_irq() and can think of several
reasons _not_ to use it...

Haavard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html