linux-kernel - Re: request_irq() return value

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]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:13:17 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: request_irq() return value

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:50:03 +0200
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> 	I'm looking at the source code of different drivers and wondering about 
> request_irq() return value. It is used mostly in 'open' routine of struct 
> net_device. If request_irq() fails some drivers return -EAGAIN, some -EBUSY 
> and some the return value of request_irq(). Is this intentional? Sample 
> drivers code:

Correct practice is to propagate the error code of request_irq out to be
the return value of the open routine. This allows the request_irq to return
different values for overlapping irqs, or out of memory, etc.

> Besides request_irq() is arch dependent so depending on arch it has different 
> set of possible return values. So ... does the return value matter or I 
> misunderstood something here?

Each architecture should return something sane. If it doesn't then it a problem
that should be addressed there.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/