[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF5DC81.1080600@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:26:25 +0900
From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: fix incorrect proc spurious output
Thank you for reviewing, Yong, Alexey.
I'll resend the patch with cc:ing stable.
Regards,
Kenji Kaneshige
(2010/11/30 19:07), Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:08:13PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>> 2010/11/30 Kenji Kaneshige<kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>:
>>> Fix the problem that all the /proc/irq/XX/spurious files shows the IRQ
>>> 0 information.
>>>
>>> Current irq_spurious_proc_open() passes on NULL as the 3rd argument,
>>> which is used as an IRQ number in irq_spurious_proc_show(), to the
>>> single_open(). Because of this, all the /proc/irq/XX/spurious file
>>> shows IRQ 0 information regardless of the IRQ number.
>>>
>>> To fix the problem, irq_spurious_proc_open() must pass on the
>>> appropreate data (IRQ number) to single_open().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige<kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Yong Zhang<yong.zhang0@...il.com>
>>
>> BTW, it's introduced by a1afb6371bb5341057056194d1168753f6d77242
>> So should we Cc'ing stable?
>
> Definitely.
>
>>> static int irq_spurious_proc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>> {
>>> - return single_open(file, irq_spurious_proc_show, NULL);
>>> + return single_open(file, irq_spurious_proc_show, PDE(inode)->data);
>>> }
>
>
--
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