[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1159729523.2891.408.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:05:23 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
"Linux-Kernel," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"J.A. Magall??n" <jamagallon@....com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] aic7xxx: check irq validity (was Re: 2.6.18-mm2)
> .
>
> And it doesn't need to be a __must_check. There's no point -- it has
> no side-effects. The only reason to call it is if you want the answer
> to the question. You had the sense of the return code wrong too; you
> want to use it as:
>
> int pci_request_irq(struct pci_dev *pdev, irq_handler_t handler,
> unsigned long flags, const char *name, void *data)
> {
> if (!valid_irq(pdev->irq)) {
> dev_printk(KERN_ERR, &pdev->dev, "invalid irq\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> return request_irq(pdev->irq, handler, flags | IRQF_SHARED, name, data);
> }
well... why not go one step further and eliminate the flags argument
entirely? And use pci_name() for the name (so eliminate the argument ;)
and always pass pdev as data, so that that argument can go away too....
that'll cover 99% of the request_irq() users for pci devices.. and makes
it really nicely simple and consistent.
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists