* [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" @ 2014-07-23 12:51 Sasha Levin 2014-07-23 14:06 ` Guenter Roeck 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2014-07-23 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geert Cc: rostedt, gnomes, linux, xerofoify, linux-m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin, Sasha Levin Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously incorrect. In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even build tested. Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> --- arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c index 9dfa1ea..513f9bb 100644 --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data *data) case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9: case 11: case 12: case 13: printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, irq); - return -ENXIO; + /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */ } return 0; } -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-23 12:51 [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" Sasha Levin @ 2014-07-23 14:06 ` Guenter Roeck 2014-07-23 15:39 ` Nick Krause 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Guenter Roeck @ 2014-07-23 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sasha Levin, geert Cc: rostedt, gnomes, xerofoify, linux-m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning > unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously > incorrect. > > In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even > build tested. > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > --- > arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c > index 9dfa1ea..513f9bb 100644 > --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c > +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data *data) > case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9: > case 11: case 12: case 13: > printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, irq); > - return -ENXIO; > + /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */ > } > return 0; > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-23 14:06 ` Guenter Roeck @ 2014-07-23 15:39 ` Nick Krause 2014-07-23 16:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Nick Krause @ 2014-07-23 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Sasha Levin, Geert Uytterhoeven, Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, linux-m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning >> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously >> incorrect. >> >> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even >> build tested. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> > > > Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > >> --- >> arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> index 9dfa1ea..513f9bb 100644 >> --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data >> *data) >> case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9: >> case 11: case 12: case 13: >> printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, >> irq); >> - return -ENXIO; >> + /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */ >> } >> return 0; >> } >> > I guess this is another bad patch :(. Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-23 15:39 ` Nick Krause @ 2014-07-23 16:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Davidlohr Bueso @ 2014-07-23 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Krause Cc: Guenter Roeck, Sasha Levin, Geert Uytterhoeven, Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, linux-m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 11:39 -0400, Nick Krause wrote: > I guess this is another bad patch :(. This is an example of you wasting peoples time with thoughtless patches. Please stop. You've been asked a million times. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-23 14:06 ` Guenter Roeck 2014-07-23 15:39 ` Nick Krause @ 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2014-07-26 15:33 ` Sasha Levin 2014-07-26 16:58 ` Guenter Roeck 1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-07-26 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Sasha Levin, Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, Nick Krause, Linux/m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin, Thomas Gleixner On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning >> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously >> incorrect. >> >> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even >> build tested. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> > > > Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it incarnation. As we're close to the opening of the merge window, it would be nice if we could conclude on this ;-) Thanks! >> --- >> arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> index 9dfa1ea..513f9bb 100644 >> --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data >> *data) >> case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9: >> case 11: case 12: case 13: >> printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, >> irq); >> - return -ENXIO; >> + /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */ >> } >> return 0; >> } >> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-07-26 15:33 ` Sasha Levin 2014-07-26 15:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2014-07-26 16:58 ` Guenter Roeck 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2014-07-26 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven, Guenter Roeck Cc: Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, Nick Krause, Linux/m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin, Thomas Gleixner On 07/26/2014 11:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) > because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my > reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html > > W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc > I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the > value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. > I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework > itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? > > W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. > I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero > value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it > incarnation. > > As we're close to the opening of the merge window, it would be nice > if we could conclude on this ;-) >From my standpoint there are two issues here: 1. The whole signed/unsigned mishmash here. Pretty much any solution besides implicitly converting a signed value into an unsigned one which then gets treated as something else entirely should be acceptable here. 2. Beyond semantics, the original patch also changed the behaviour of the code. What previously was a soft printk() is now a hard error. Does it break any systems? Cornercases? I dunno, but I can assure you that this wasn't tested at all. To sum it up, a solution would be welcome. The patch you currently have in the m68k repo isn't a solution. Thanks, Sasha ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-26 15:33 ` Sasha Levin @ 2014-07-26 15:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-07-26 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sasha Levin Cc: Guenter Roeck, Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, Nick Krause, Linux/m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin, Thomas Gleixner, Richard Zidlicky On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote: > On 07/26/2014 11:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) >> because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my >> reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html >> >> W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc >> I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the >> value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. >> I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework >> itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? >> >> W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. >> I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero >> value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it >> incarnation. >> >> As we're close to the opening of the merge window, it would be nice >> if we could conclude on this ;-) > > From my standpoint there are two issues here: > > 1. The whole signed/unsigned mishmash here. Pretty much any solution > besides implicitly converting a signed value into an unsigned one > which then gets treated as something else entirely should be acceptable > here. > > 2. Beyond semantics, the original patch also changed the behaviour of > the code. What previously was a soft printk() is now a hard error. > Does it break any systems? Cornercases? I dunno, but I can assure you > that this wasn't tested at all. If it broke something, it was most probably broken before commit c288bf2533e57174b90b07860c4391bcd1ea269c ("m68k/irq: Rename irq_controller to irq_chip"), too. It seems the Q40 hardware cannot handle this case, so considering this a hard error looks fine to me (CC Richard Zidlicky). > To sum it up, a solution would be welcome. The patch you currently have > in the m68k repo isn't a solution. OK, reverted. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2014-07-26 15:33 ` Sasha Levin @ 2014-07-26 16:58 ` Guenter Roeck 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Guenter Roeck @ 2014-07-26 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Sasha Levin, Steven Rostedt, One Thousand Gnomes, Nick Krause, Linux/m68k, linux-kernel, Sasha Levin, Thomas Gleixner On 07/26/2014 08:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning >>> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously >>> incorrect. >>> >>> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even >>> build tested. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> >> >> >> Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( >> >> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) > because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my > reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html > > W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc > I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the > value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. > I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework > itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? > > W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. > I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero > value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it > incarnation. > In my understanding, anything not equal to 0 means that an interrupt is pending, not that there was an error. Maybe my understanding is wrong. Either case, I don't really care. Guenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-26 16:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-07-23 12:51 [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" Sasha Levin 2014-07-23 14:06 ` Guenter Roeck 2014-07-23 15:39 ` Nick Krause 2014-07-23 16:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2014-07-26 15:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2014-07-26 15:33 ` Sasha Levin 2014-07-26 15:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2014-07-26 16:58 ` Guenter Roeck
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.