[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103102338230.2787@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:46:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
cc: gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Mike Sterling <mike.sterling@...rosoft.com>,
Abhishek Kane <v-abkane@...rosoft.com>,
Hank Janssen <hjanssen@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/21] Staging: hv: Cleanup irq management
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> Now that vmbus_driver is a platform pci driver,
> cleanup the irq allocation mess by using the standard
> irq allocation mechanisms.
>
> Note that this patch generates an error when the checkpatch
> script is run because of the IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM flag used in
> request_irq() function. This interrupt is the only
> external event this VM will get and consequently if this
> flag (IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM) is not specified, experimentally
> we have shown that the entropy in the VM will very very low.
Fair enough. We need to come up with some way to work around
this though.
> }
> - vector = VMBUS_IRQ_VECTOR;
>
> - DPRINT_INFO(VMBUS_DRV, "irq 0x%x vector 0x%x", vmbus_irq, vector);
> + vector = IRQ0_VECTOR + pdev->irq;
> + DPRINT_INFO(VMBUS_DRV, "irq 0x%x vector 0x%x", pdev->irq,
> + IRQ0_VECTOR + pdev->irq);
Why evaluating vector first and then not using it for that debug print
thingy?
Btw, are you going to replace that DPRINT_* stuff as well ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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