On 03/05/2014 04:09 PM, 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?
The problem is that it could hit multiple IRQs ... maybe pr_crit might be better
here so we don't flood the log with an unnecessary stack trace; anyone with the
source can figure out what the call path is.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to print out the negative return value, maybe
> you meant to print -ret instead?
Heh :) You're right. I'll fix that too.
P.
>
>> + }
>> 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/
