Re: [PATCH] x86, fix x86 fixup_irqs() error handling

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > index d99f31d..55fab61 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> >  	struct irq_desc *desc;
> >  	struct irq_data *data;
> >  	struct irq_chip *chip;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> >  		int break_affinity = 0;
> > @@ -389,8 +390,12 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> >  		if (!irqd_can_move_in_process_context(data) && chip->irq_mask)
> >  			chip->irq_mask(data);
> >  
> > -		if (chip->irq_set_affinity)
> > -			chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> > +		if (chip->irq_set_affinity) {
> > +			ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> > +			WARN(ret == -ENOSPC,
> > +			     "IRQ %d set affinity failed with %d.  The device assigned to this IRQ is unstable.\n",
> > +			     irq, ret);
> 
> Should this be WARN_ON_ONCE() to avoid filling the kernel log instead?
> 
> It doesn't make much sense to print out the negative return value, maybe 
> you meant to print -ret instead?

Well, that does not make sense either. We only print if ret == -ENOSPC!
 
> > +		}
> >  		else if (!(warned++))
> >  			set_affinity = 0;
> >  
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/