Hi Will,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:06:29AM +0100, Vinayak Kale wrote: >> Return a separate error code when a non-percpu interrupt is passed to >> request_percpu_irq(). >> >> Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vk...@apm.com> >> --- >> kernel/irq/manage.c | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c >> index 514bcfd..c2713ae 100644 >> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c >> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c >> @@ -1671,10 +1671,12 @@ int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, >> irq_handler_t handler, >> return -EINVAL; >> >> desc = irq_to_desc(irq); >> - if (!desc || !irq_settings_can_request(desc) || >> - !irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(desc)) >> + if (!desc || !irq_settings_can_request(desc)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> + if (!irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(desc)) >> + return -EPERM; > > <bikeshedding> I reckon -ENODEV is clearer here. </bikeshedding> I looked at the issue as "operation not allowed since interrupt is non-percpu" and I found below comment for EPERM in 'include/uapi/asm-generic/errno-base.h' . So thought this error code could be more fitting. #define EPERM 1 /* Operation not permitted */ > > Also, there's a counterpart to this code in request_threaded_irq, where I > think we should do something similar. So in request_threaded_irq, we would still keep the WARN_ON for percpu interrupt and return a different error code. Is my understanding correct? -- 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/