On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, 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?
>
> It doesn't make much sense to print out the negative return value, maybe
> you meant to print -ret instead?
Well, that does not make sense either. We only print if ret == -ENOSPC!
> > + }
> > 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/
