On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:59:00AM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 12/10/21 1:49 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > >> platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails. > >> No need to repeat this. > >> > >> While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills > >> out a big WARN() in such case. > > > > The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that > > platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc > > says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by > > platform_get_irq(), the out label is: > > > > WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"); > > return ret; > > > > So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to > > return -ENXIO: > > > > if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n")) > > return -ENXIO; > > return ret; > > My unmerged patch (https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285) does this > but returns -EINVAL instead. > > > Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ? > > Of course it isn't... It's unsubstantiated statement. The vIRQ 0 shouldn't be returned by any of those API calls. If it is the case, go and fix them, no need to workaround in each of the callers. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
