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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <56AFC632.8070507@cogentembedded.com> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:55:14 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc91x: propagate irq return code On 02/01/2016 11:41 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >>> The smc91x driver doesn't honor the probe deferral mechanism when the >>> interrupt source is not yet available, such as one provided by a gpio >>> controller not probed. >> What if 'ndev->irq' does equal 0? > That's not possible AFAIR. Possible if of_irq_get() returns 0 (and it will on failure!). > There was a discussion where Linus had stated that the irq is a cookie, and a 0 > value is "no interrupt", expcepting for the single case of a PC and its timer > interrupt. I know, I know... and even on x86 it was never passed to request_irq(), only to setup_irq()... > As we're not in that case, and up to my understanding, platform_get_irq() cannot > return a 0 value, only a strictly negative or positive one. Wishful thinking... > And yet, that test now looks weird to me. I think I'll respin the patch with a > "if (ndev->irq < 0) {" instead of the "if (ndev->irq <= 0) {". Defeating Linus' PoV as a result... ;-) > Cheers. MBR, Sergei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists