On 09/26/2012 02:26 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>> A return value of 0 and 1 are acceptable. So this check isn't correct.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
> Which case value 1 is acceptable, could you share? Thanks.
I can see the following in include/linux/irq.h:
/*
* Return value for chip->irq_set_affinity()
*
* IRQ_SET_MASK_OK - OK, core updates irq_data.affinity
* IRQ_SET_MASK_NOCPY - OK, chip did update irq_data.affinity
*/
enum {
IRQ_SET_MASK_OK = 0,
IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY,
};
And see some of those ->irq_set_affinity() implementations at various
places.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
>> OMG, why did you drop the other hunk which cleared the cpu *before*
>> invoking ->irq_set_affinity()? IMO, altering irq affinity involves more work
>> than just altering the mask; that's why you have that ->irq_set_affinity()
>> function. So, if you alter the mask *after* calling ->irq_set_affinity(),
>> its not right..
> Sorry the mistake, will update.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
