lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip.
From
Date
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:18 +0000, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 10:55 +0000, ijc@hellion.org.uk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> arch_init_chip_data cannot be moved into struct irq_chip at this time
>> >> because irq_desc->chip is not known at the time the irq_desc is
>> >> setup. For now rename arch_init_chip_data to arch_init_irq_desc (for
>> >> PowerPC, the only other user, whose usage better matches the new name)
>> >> and on x86 convert arch_init_chip_data to ioapic_init_chip_data and
>> >> call this whenever the IO APIC code allocates a new IRQ.
>> >
>> > One idea I had to improve this was to add a struct irq_chip * as a
>> > parameter to irq_to_desc_alloc_node. The new parameter potentially could
>> > be NULL for current behaviour. Does that sound like a reasonable
>> > approach?
>>
>> I don't follow why we have the restriction that irq_to_desc_alloc_node
>> must call arch_init_chip_data. Assuming that requirement to call arch_init_chip_data
>> is valid, passing something into init_one_irq_desc seems appropriate.
>
> Yes, I suspect that could also be made to work.
>
> The lifecycle of the irq_desc and chip_data isn't really clear to me --
> I guess once allocated an irq_desc never gets freed (at least
> currently)? The associated chip_data can be freed on migrate and
> replaced with a new one, but is not freed otherwise.

Yes. That actually looks like a bug.

> My concern is that if the caller asks for an IRQ which already exists
> (is that valid?) then you will get that existing irq_desc back,
> including its existing chip_data, which potentially leaks the new one
> which was passed in. Or is it the case that the only way this could
> happen would be for legacy IRQs? In which case perhaps it is simply
> invalid to pass a new chip data in for such an IRQ.

The only irqs that should be allocated/freed are probably the msi
irqs as those are the only ones that dynamically come and go in the
system.

Unfortunately there appears to be a bigger mess here than first appeared.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-10 19:15    [W:0.064 / U:17.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site