Hi Peter, Ricardo,
On 13/06/18 09:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 05:57:23PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
index 5426627..dbc5e02 100644
--- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
+++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
* interrupt handler after suspending interrupts. For system
* wakeup devices users need to implement wakeup detection in
* their interrupt handlers.
+ * IRQF_DELIVER_AS_NMI - Configure interrupt to be delivered as non-maskable, if
+ * supported by the chip.
*/
NAK on the first 6 patches. You really _REALLY_ don't want to expose
NMIs to this level.
I've been working on something similar on arm64 side, and effectively
the one thing that might be common to arm64 and intel is the interface
to set an interrupt as NMI. So I guess it would be nice to agree on the
right approach for this.
The way I did it was by introducing a new irq_state and let the irqchip
driver handle most of the work (if it supports that state):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/25/181
This has not been ACKed nor NAKed. So I am just asking whether this is a
more suitable approach, and if not, is there any suggestions on how to
do this?
Thanks,
--
Julien Thierry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
