[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874kulbwyv.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:42:48 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>,
Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Andrew Murray <amurray@...goodpenguin.co.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>,
Karthikeyan Mitran <m.karthikeyan@...iveil.co.in>,
Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@....com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly
Bjorn,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 04:56:42PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > I think the best pattern is:
>> > >
>> > > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
>> > > if (irq < 0)
>> > > return irq;
>> >
>> > Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt.
>>
>> Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value?
>> About 900 of them do not.
I don't know what I was looking at.
platform_get_irq() does the right thing already, so checking for irq < 0
is sufficient.
Sorry for the confusion!
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists