On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:01:04PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 12/10/21 8:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko 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. > >>>> > >>>> We do _not_ know what needs to be fixed, that's the problem, and that's why the WARN() > >>>> is there... > >>> > >>> So, have you seen this warning (being reported) related to libahci_platform? > >> > >> No (as if you need to really see this while it's obvious from the code review). > >> > >>> If no, what we are discussing about then? The workaround is redundant and > >> > >> I don't know. :-) Your arguments so far seem bogus (sorry! :-))... > > > > It seems you haven't got them at all. The problems of platform_get_irq() et al > > shouldn't be worked around in the callers. > > I have clearly explained to you what I'm working around there. If that wasn't clear > enough, I don't want to continue this talk anymore. Good luck with your patch (not this > one). Good luck with yours, not the one that touches platform_get_irq_optional() though! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
