On Sat, Jan 02 2021 at 18:58, Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> 0 is not a proper IRQ number and also indicates failure.
> Also check for this case in upwards functions.
0 is a valid irq number for historical reasons on x86. So no.
Thanks,
tglx
Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/ioapic: Fix return check of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/ioapic: Fix return check of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:03:46 +0100
- In-reply-to: <20210102175859.335447-6-adam@l4re.org>
- References: <20210102175859.335447-1-adam@l4re.org> <20210102175859.335447-6-adam@l4re.org>
- References:
- [PATCH 1/6] irqchip/bcm2836: Fix return check in IPI alloc
- From: Adam Lackorzynski
- [PATCH 6/6] x86/ioapic: Fix return check of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs
- From: Adam Lackorzynski
- [PATCH 1/6] irqchip/bcm2836: Fix return check in IPI alloc
- Prev by Date: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: at91-pio4: add support for slew-rate
- Next by Date: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: at91-pio4: add slew-rate
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 6/6] x86/ioapic: Fix return check of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs
- Next by thread: [PATCH 3/6] irqdomain/msi: Fix return check of __irq_domain_alloc_irqs
- Index(es):
 |