linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: irq: don't return 0 from of_irq

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:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:14:40 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:	grant.likely@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	frowand.list@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: irq: don't return 0 from of_irq_get()

On 6/3/2016 3:14 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

>> of_irq_get() returns 0 iff irq_create_of_mapping() call fails. Returning
>> both error code  and 0 on failure is a sign of a misdesigned API. Return
>> -ENXIO instead like one of the callers, platform_get_irq(), does; fix up
>> the kernel-doc as well...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
>
> So I think this is done this way because of the variation in NO_IRQ
> definition across architectures.

    I remember that NO_IRQ is "considered harmful" by Linus. Actually, I'm nit 
sure what you mean, could you elaborate on that?

> But then again, of_irq_get is
> relatively new.

> Rob

MBR, Sergei