Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:04:04 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix shared interrupt handling of SA_INTERRUPT and SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM |
| |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:41:12 -0700, > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, suppressing the unnecessary call of add_interrupt_randomness() > > > should be still valid. The reduced patch is below. > (snip) > > > > Shouldn't that be `if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED)'? > > Yes, it's more strict.
I don't think so. Look at what's going on. If "ret" is IRQ_HANDLED all well and fine. However, look at how "retval" is being used:
static void __report_bad_irq(int irq, irq_desc_t *desc, irqreturn_t action_ret) { ... if (action_ret != IRQ_HANDLED && action_ret != IRQ_NONE) { printk(KERN_ERR "irq event %d: bogus return value %x\n", irq, action_ret); } else { printk(KERN_ERR "irq %d: nobody cared!\n", irq); }
So, we're looking to see not only if a handler returned IRQ_HANDLED, but also if a handler returned _some other value_ other than IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |