Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:58:10 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" |
| |
On 07/26/2014 08:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning >>> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously >>> incorrect. >>> >>> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even >>> build tested. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> >> >> >> Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( >> >> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) > because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my > reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html > > W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc > I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the > value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. > I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework > itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? > > W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. > I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero > value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it > incarnation. > In my understanding, anything not equal to 0 means that an interrupt is pending, not that there was an error. Maybe my understanding is wrong.
Either case, I don't really care.
Guenter
| |