On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 18:18 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Paul Gortmaker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It might be worth warning on spurious IRQ events; they might > > point someone at a bogus DTS value or similar. > > > > But ratelimit them to ensure we aren't too spammy about it. > > > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]> > > Cc: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c > > index 290559df1e8b..5c777e3a4c04 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c > > @@ -497,10 +497,12 @@ void __do_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) > > may_hard_irq_enable(); > > > > /* And finally process it */ > > - if (unlikely(irq == NO_IRQ)) > > + if (unlikely(irq == NO_IRQ)) { > > + printk_ratelimited(KERN_WARNING "spurious irq on %d\n", > > irq); > > If we did decide we cared about this patch, then no need for "irq" above, as > we already know it is equal to NO_IRQ.
I'm not convinced it's worth printing, we already have a counter in proc. I think it's more likely to just lead to console spam. But maybe I'm wrong and you can convince me otherwise :) cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
