On Wed, Nov 11 2020 at 16:16, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:43:55PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
>> This function uses the error status from irq_set_handler_data().
>> irq_set_chained_handler_and_data() returns no such error status. Is it
>> ok to drop the error handling?
>
> I'm not an IRQ expert, but I'd say it's OK to drop it. Of the 40 or
> so callers, the only other caller that looks at the error status is
> ingenic_intc_of_init().
Don't know why irq_set_chained_handler_and_data() does not return an
error, but the call site must really do something stupid if it fails to
hand in the proper interrupt number.
> Thomas, it looks like irq_domain_set_info() and msi_domain_ops_init()
> set the handler itself before setting the handler data:
>
> irq_domain_set_info
> irq_set_chip_and_handler_name(virq, chip, handler, ...)
> irq_set_handler_data(virq, handler_data)
>
> msi_domain_ops_init
> __irq_set_handler(virq, info->handler, ...)
> if (info->handler_data)
> irq_set_handler_data(virq, info->handler_data)
>
> That looks at least superficially similar to the race you fixed with
> 2cf5a03cb29d ("PCI/keystone: Fix race in installing chained IRQ
> handler").
>
> Should irq_domain_set_info() and msi_domain_ops_init() swap the order,
> too?
In theory yes. Practically it should not matter because that happens
during the allocation way before the interrupt can actually fire. I'll
have a deeper look nevertheless.
Thanks,
tglx
