On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:01:01PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:54:33PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > +#include <asm/irq.h>
> > +#include <asm/io.h>
>
> linux/io.h
>
> > + unsigned int irqs, i, irq_base;
> > +
> > + irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 16, irqs - 16, numa_node_id());
> > + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq_base)) {
>
> Erm... irq_alloc_descs() returns a negative number on error.
>
> if ((int)irq_base < 0)
>
> or make irq_base an int, and use:
>
> if (irq_base < 0)
Just for me: So the check using IS_ERR_VALUE is as wrong as the other
occurences in arch/arm that you just kicked out or is it just ugly?
I thought about it and went the "make irq_base int" route (and even
fixed the asm includes) even before I sent my patch. Just failed to pass
the right hash to format-patch after rebasing :-|
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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/
