On Mon, Jul 08 2024 at 13:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/7/24 8:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Why does the irq_chip in question have an irq_set_affinity() callback in
>> the first place?
> I believe originally (at least that's what's being discussed in the
> linked threads) it was because the irqchip code didn't check whether
> .irq_set_affinity was not NULL at all, so if it was missing, there would
> be NULL pointer dereference.
>
> Now this is checked and irq_do_set_affinity() returns -EINVAL, which
> triggers the warning that is being silenced by this patch.
>
> If you think this is better, I can:
> - Tweak the cpuhotplug.c code to do some
> if (chip && !chip->irq_set_affinity) return false;
It does already:
migrate_one_irq()
if (chip && !chip->irq_set_affinity)
return false;
Right at the top.
> - Remove all the .irq_set_affinity implementations from PCI drivers
> which only return -EINVAL
>
> Would that be better ?
I think so.
Thanks,
tglx
