Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ata: libahci_platform: Get rid of dup message when IRQ can't be retrieved
From: Sergey Shtylyov <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-10 19:30:58
Also in:
lkml
On 12/10/21 10:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: [...]
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails. No need to repeat this. While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills out a big WARN() in such case.The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by platform_get_irq(), the out label is: WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"); return ret; So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to return -ENXIO: if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n")) return -ENXIO; return ret;My unmerged patch (https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285) does this but returns -EINVAL instead.quoted
Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ?Of course it isn't...It's unsubstantiated statement. The vIRQ 0 shouldn't be returned by any of those API calls.We do _not_ know what needs to be fixed, that's the problem, and that's why the WARN() is there...So, have you seen this warning (being reported) related to libahci_platform?No (as if you need to really see this while it's obvious from the code review).quoted
If no, what we are discussing about then? The workaround is redundant andI don't know. :-) Your arguments so far seem bogus (sorry! :-))...It seems you haven't got them at all. The problems of platform_get_irq() et al shouldn't be worked around in the callers.I have clearly explained to you what I'm working around there. If that wasn't clear enough, I don't want to continue this talk anymore. Good luck with your patch (not this one).Good luck with yours, not the one that touches platform_get_irq_optional() though!
Mmh, I'm not touching it any way that would break what your patch was trying to do, unless you've re-thopught that. It also shoudn't matter whose patch gets merged 1st other than some small adaptation). MBR, Sergey