lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:irq/core] genirq: MSI: Fix freeing of unallocated MSI
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:00:23 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hm, so this appears to be the first time that 'irq == 0' assumptions
> > are getting into the genirq core. Is NO_IRQ dead? I realize that the
> > MSI code uses '!irq' as a flag, but still, quite a few architectures
> > define NO_IRQ so it appears to matter to them.
>
> NO_IRQ strikes back, everybody takes cover! ;-)
>
> More seriously, this seems to be two schools of thoughts on that one.
> The irqdomain subsystem seems to treat 'irq == 0' as the indication that
> 'this is not a valid IRQ', and so does MSI (as you noticed). Given that
> this code deals with MSI in conjunction with irqdomains, it felt
> natural to adopt the same convention.
>
> Also, not all the architecture are defining NO_IRQ, and it only seems
> to be used in code that is doesn't look portable across architectures.
> Either these architecture don't care about MSI, or they are happy
> enough to consider that virtual interrupt 0 is invalid in the MSI case.
>
> So I'm a bit lost on that one. I sincerely thought NO_IRQ was being
> retired (https://lwn.net/Articles/470820/). Should we introduce a
> NO_MSI_IRQ (set to zero) to take care of this case?

Nah, that'd be overkill. irq 0 is invalid for MSI in any case so we
really should stick with that convention.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-09 15:21    [W:0.067 / U:4.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site