Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:52:26 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: test for "spurious" IRQ ignores possible IRQ_WAKE_THREAD value |
| |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > [Robert P. J. Day - Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:34:48PM -0400] > | On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > | > | > never ashamed to embarrass myself in public, i just noticed the > | > following. from kernel/irq/spurious.c: > | > > | > ... > | > static void > | > __report_bad_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, > | > irqreturn_t action_ret) > | > { > | > struct irqaction *action; > | > > | > if (action_ret != IRQ_HANDLED && action_ret != IRQ_NONE) { > | > printk(KERN_ERR "irq event %d: bogus return value %x\n", > | > irq, action_ret); > | > > | > but from include/linux/irqreturn.h, we see *three* possible return > | > values: > | > > | > enum irqreturn { > | > IRQ_NONE, > | > IRQ_HANDLED, > | > IRQ_WAKE_THREAD, > | > }; > | > > | > typedef enum irqreturn irqreturn_t; > | > #define IRQ_RETVAL(x) ((x) != IRQ_NONE) > | > > | > is there an inconsistency here? > | > ... > > Hi Robert, > > It could that IRQ_WAKE_THREAD is just missed here. I suppose it > was brough there as thread irq merged. But I think only Thomas > know for sure, I definitely miss something :) CC'ed
from kernel/irq/handle.c:
trace_irq_handler_entry(irq, action); ret = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id); trace_irq_handler_exit(irq, action, ret);
switch (ret) { case IRQ_WAKE_THREAD: /* * Set result to handled so the spurious check * does not trigger. */ ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
So nothing to worry about :)
Thanks,
tglx
| |