linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: Remove repetitive increase irq_err

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220610083044.GA7565@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:30:44 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Genjian Zhang <zhanggenjian123@...il.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, huhai@...inos.cn,
        k2ci <kernel-bot@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: Remove repetitive increase irq_err_count

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:39:16PM +0800, Genjian Zhang wrote:
> From: huhai <huhai@...inos.cn>
> 
> commit 979934da9e7a ("[PATCH] mips: update IRQ handling for vr41xx") added
> a function irq_dispatch, and it'll increase irq_err_count when the get_irq
> callback returns a negative value, but increase irq_err_count in get_irq
> was not removed.
> 
> And also, modpost complains once gpio-vr41xx drivers become modules.
>   ERROR: modpost: "irq_err_count" [drivers/gpio/gpio-vr41xx.ko] undefined!
> 
> So it would be a good idea to remove repetitive increase irq_err_count in
> get_irq callback.
> 
> Fixes: 27fdd325dace ("MIPS: Update VR41xx GPIO driver to use gpiolib")
> Fixes: 979934da9e7a ("[PATCH] mips: update IRQ handling for vr41xx")
> Reported-by: k2ci <kernel-bot@...inos.cn>
> Signed-off-by: huhai <huhai@...inos.cn>

This is missing your the Signed-off-by as submitter of the patch.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]