lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] BUG_ON() bad input to request_irq
Date
Is there any reason why these bugs should be treated gently?  The
caller might not want to check NR_IRQS and IRQ_NOREQUEST cases, but
a NULL handler or NULL dev_id w/ shared are coding bugs.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
---
kernel/irq/manage.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -r c2eb8ef5a0be kernel/irq/manage.c
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c Thu Jan 17 15:48:03 2008 +1100
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c Thu Jan 17 15:49:33 2008 +1100
@@ -532,13 +532,12 @@ int request_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_ha
* which interrupt is which (messes up the interrupt freeing
* logic etc).
*/
- if ((irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && !dev_id)
- return -EINVAL;
+ BUG_ON((irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && !dev_id);
+ BUG_ON(!handler);
+
if (irq >= NR_IRQS)
return -EINVAL;
if (irq_desc[irq].status & IRQ_NOREQUEST)
- return -EINVAL;
- if (!handler)
return -EINVAL;

action = kmalloc(sizeof(struct irqaction), GFP_ATOMIC);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-17 08:03    [W:0.092 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site