Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:10:54 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix shared interrupt handling of SA_INTERRUPT and SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM |
| |
At Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:04:04 +0100, Russell King wrote: > > 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.
But obviously any other value is invalid as shown above, so we shouldn't take it seriously as the correct return value for triggering add_random_interrupt().
Takashi - 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/
| |