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?
> + }
> else if (!(warned++))
> set_affinity = 0;
>
--
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/
