From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@gmail.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Andrew Murray <amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>,
Karthikeyan Mitran <m.karthikeyan@mobiveil.co.in>,
Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:56:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200313215642.GA202015@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871rpwhsnd.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> Last time around, my understanding was that, going forward,
> >> the best solution was:
> >>
> >> virq = platform_get_irq(...)
> >> if (virq <= 0)
> >> return virq ? : -ENODEV;
> >>
> >> i.e. map 0 to -ENODEV, pass other errors as-is, remove the dev_err
> >>
> >> @Bjorn/Lorenzo did you have a change of heart?
> >
> > Yes. In 10006651 (Oct 20, 2017), I thought:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > if (irq <= 0)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > was fine. In 11066455 (Aug 7, 2019), I said I thought I was wrong and
> > that:
> >
> > platform_get_irq() is a generic interface and we have to be able to
> > interpret return values consistently. The overwhelming consensus
> > among platform_get_irq() callers is to treat "irq < 0" as an error,
> > and I think we should follow suit.
> > ...
> > I think the best pattern is:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> > if (irq < 0)
> > return irq;
>
> Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt.
Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value?
About 900 of them do not.
Or should platform_get_irq() return a negative error instead of 0?
If 0 is not a valid interrupt, I think it would be easier to use the
interface if we made it so platform_get_irq() could never return 0,
which I think would also fit the interface documentation better:
* Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure.
Bjorn
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Karthikeyan Mitran <m.karthikeyan@mobiveil.co.in>,
Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>,
Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Andrew Murray <amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:56:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200313215642.GA202015@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871rpwhsnd.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> Last time around, my understanding was that, going forward,
> >> the best solution was:
> >>
> >> virq = platform_get_irq(...)
> >> if (virq <= 0)
> >> return virq ? : -ENODEV;
> >>
> >> i.e. map 0 to -ENODEV, pass other errors as-is, remove the dev_err
> >>
> >> @Bjorn/Lorenzo did you have a change of heart?
> >
> > Yes. In 10006651 (Oct 20, 2017), I thought:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > if (irq <= 0)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > was fine. In 11066455 (Aug 7, 2019), I said I thought I was wrong and
> > that:
> >
> > platform_get_irq() is a generic interface and we have to be able to
> > interpret return values consistently. The overwhelming consensus
> > among platform_get_irq() callers is to treat "irq < 0" as an error,
> > and I think we should follow suit.
> > ...
> > I think the best pattern is:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> > if (irq < 0)
> > return irq;
>
> Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt.
Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value?
About 900 of them do not.
Or should platform_get_irq() return a negative error instead of 0?
If 0 is not a valid interrupt, I think it would be easier to use the
interface if we made it so platform_get_irq() could never return 0,
which I think would also fit the interface documentation better:
* Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure.
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Karthikeyan Mitran <m.karthikeyan@mobiveil.co.in>,
Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>,
Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Andrew Murray <amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:56:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200313215642.GA202015@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871rpwhsnd.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> Last time around, my understanding was that, going forward,
> >> the best solution was:
> >>
> >> virq = platform_get_irq(...)
> >> if (virq <= 0)
> >> return virq ? : -ENODEV;
> >>
> >> i.e. map 0 to -ENODEV, pass other errors as-is, remove the dev_err
> >>
> >> @Bjorn/Lorenzo did you have a change of heart?
> >
> > Yes. In 10006651 (Oct 20, 2017), I thought:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > if (irq <= 0)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > was fine. In 11066455 (Aug 7, 2019), I said I thought I was wrong and
> > that:
> >
> > platform_get_irq() is a generic interface and we have to be able to
> > interpret return values consistently. The overwhelming consensus
> > among platform_get_irq() callers is to treat "irq < 0" as an error,
> > and I think we should follow suit.
> > ...
> > I think the best pattern is:
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> > if (irq < 0)
> > return irq;
>
> Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt.
Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value?
About 900 of them do not.
Or should platform_get_irq() return a negative error instead of 0?
If 0 is not a valid interrupt, I think it would be easier to use the
interface if we made it so platform_get_irq() could never return 0,
which I think would also fit the interface documentation better:
* Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure.
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-13 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-11 19:19 [PATCH 0/5] Handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` [PATCH 1/5] pci: handled " Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 20:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-04-06 21:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 14:07 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-12 14:07 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-12 14:07 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-12 19:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 19:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 19:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 22:45 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-12 22:45 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-12 22:45 ` Linus Walleij
2020-03-11 19:19 ` [PATCH 2/5] pci: added check for return value of platform_get_irq Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` [PATCH 3/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` [PATCH 4/5] " Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-12 9:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-12 9:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-12 9:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-12 14:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 14:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 14:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-12 15:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-12 15:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-12 15:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2020-03-13 21:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-13 21:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-13 21:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-13 21:56 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2020-03-13 21:56 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-13 21:56 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-17 22:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-17 22:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-17 22:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-18 13:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-18 13:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-18 13:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-18 22:22 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-18 22:22 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-18 22:22 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-19 8:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 8:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 8:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-19 21:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-19 21:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-19 21:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-11 19:19 ` [PATCH 5/5] pci: added check for return value of platform_get_irq Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
2020-03-11 19:19 ` Aman Sharma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200313215642.GA202015@google.com \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com \
--cc=amanharitsh123@gmail.com \
--cc=amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=m.karthikeyan@mobiveil.co.in \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=ryder.lee@mediatek.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.