> .
>
> And it doesn't need to be a __must_check. There's no point -- it has
> no side-effects. The only reason to call it is if you want the answer
> to the question. You had the sense of the return code wrong too; you
> want to use it as:
>
> int pci_request_irq(struct pci_dev *pdev, irq_handler_t handler,
> unsigned long flags, const char *name, void *data)
> {
> if (!valid_irq(pdev->irq)) {
> dev_printk(KERN_ERR, &pdev->dev, "invalid irq\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> return request_irq(pdev->irq, handler, flags | IRQF_SHARED, name, data);
> }
well... why not go one step further and eliminate the flags argument
entirely? And use pci_name() for the name (so eliminate the argument ;)
and always pass pdev as data, so that that argument can go away too....
that'll cover 99% of the request_irq() users for pci devices.. and makes
it really nicely simple and consistent.
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
