On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 11:15 AM Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/31/21 9:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sunday, October 31, 2021, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:lars@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: ... > > - if (trig->subirq_base) { > > + if (trig->subirq_base > 0) { > > > > >= ? > > I don't know. 0 is not supposed to be a valid irq number. And we > kzalloc() the struct, so if it hasn't been explicitly initialized we'd > get 0. But it will change the behaviour of the code. >=0 is the opposite of replacing < 0. > The way the code is at the moment we'd never end up here without calling > irq_alloc_descs(), so it is either a valid irq or a negative error code > and I can see why you might want to use >= for consistency and symmetry. Right! (But on some architectures and cases 0 might be a valid vIRQ) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
