On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 06:27 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Guan Xuetao wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 20:36 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Convert calls to free_irq so that the second argument is the same as the
> >> last argument of the corresponding call to request_irq, rather than the
> >> second to last. Without this property, free_irq does nothing.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> arch/unicore32/kernel/dma.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/unicore32/kernel/dma.c b/arch/unicore32/kernel/dma.c
> >> index ae441bc..c813fec 100644
> >> --- a/arch/unicore32/kernel/dma.c
> >> +++ b/arch/unicore32/kernel/dma.c
> >> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ int __init puv3_init_dma(void)
> >> ret = request_irq(IRQ_DMAERR, dma_err_handler, 0, "DMAERR", NULL);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> printk(KERN_CRIT "Can't register IRQ for DMAERR\n");
> >> - free_irq(IRQ_DMA, "DMA");
> >> + free_irq(IRQ_DMA, NULL);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> > Yeah, it's an obvious mistake. Thanks.
> > Because the dma device is just located inside PKUnity-3 SoC, and
> > request_irq() should always return 0, I prefer to remove this free_irq()
> > line.
>
> Remove the whole if test I guess. Is there a nce way to indicate that the
> return value is not needed (eg for the benefit of future bug finding
> rules)?
>
> julia
In this case, removing the line containing free_irq() is well enough,
because IRQ_DMA can work even when IRQ_DMAERR doesn't work. And we need
printk and error return value to get potential logical bug information.
Thanks & Regards,
Guan Xuetao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
