[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53CF3FFB.4080809@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:54:19 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>, geert@...ux-m68k.org
CC: linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Remove printk statement and add return statement
in q40ints.c
On 07/22/2014 09:08 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> This removes the printk statement for irqs not defined by the hardware in
> function q40_irq_startup and instead returns -ENXIO as stated by the fix
> me message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c
> index 513f9bb..86f05c0 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c
> @@ -48,8 +48,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data *data)
> switch (irq) {
> case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9:
> case 11: case 12: case 13:
> - printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, irq);
> - /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */
> + return -ENXIO;
Returning -ENXIO from a function returning an unsigned int isn't really very helpful,
don't you think ?
With all those FIXMEs, you might want to keep in mind that there is typically a
good reason for it. If it was as easy as your proposed fix, you can assume
that the FIXME would not have been there in the first place.
Guenter
--
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