Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:42:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 04:56:42PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> > > I think the best pattern is: >> >> > > >> >> > > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i); >> >> > > if (irq < 0) >> >> > > return irq; >> >> > >> >> > Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt. >> >> >> >> Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value? >> >> About 900 of them do not. >> >> I don't know what I was looking at. >> >> platform_get_irq() does the right thing already, so checking for irq < 0 >> is sufficient. >> >> Sorry for the confusion! > > Thanks, I was indeed confused! Maybe we could reduce future confusion > by strengthening the comments slightly, e.g., > > - * Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure. > + * Return: non-zero IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure. > > I don't want to push my luck, but it's pretty hard to prove that > platform_get_irq() never returns 0. What would you think of something > like the following? No objections from my side.
