On Tue, Jul 09 2024 at 19:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.
if (!chip || !chip->irq_set_affinity) {
Obviously :)
