lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, fix x86 fixup_irqs() error handling

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > index d99f31d..55fab61 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> > struct irq_desc *desc;
> > struct irq_data *data;
> > struct irq_chip *chip;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> > int break_affinity = 0;
> > @@ -389,8 +390,12 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> > if (!irqd_can_move_in_process_context(data) && chip->irq_mask)
> > chip->irq_mask(data);
> >
> > - if (chip->irq_set_affinity)
> > - chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> > + if (chip->irq_set_affinity) {
> > + ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> > + WARN(ret == -ENOSPC,
> > + "IRQ %d set affinity failed with %d. The device assigned to this IRQ is unstable.\n",
> > + irq, ret);
>
> Should this be WARN_ON_ONCE() to avoid filling the kernel log instead?
>
> It doesn't make much sense to print out the negative return value, maybe
> you meant to print -ret instead?

Well, that does not make sense either. We only print if ret == -ENOSPC!

> > + }
> > else if (!(warned++))
> > set_affinity = 0;
> >
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-06 12:01    [W:0.059 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site