> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:59:58 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any reason why these bugs should be treated gently? The > caller might not want to check NR_IRQS and IRQ_NOREQUEST cases, but > a NULL handler or NULL dev_id w/ shared are coding bugs. > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > kernel/irq/manage.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff -r c2eb8ef5a0be kernel/irq/manage.c > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c Thu Jan 17 15:48:03 2008 +1100 > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c Thu Jan 17 15:49:33 2008 +1100 > @@ -532,13 +532,12 @@ int request_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_ha > * which interrupt is which (messes up the interrupt freeing > * logic etc). > */ > - if ((irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && !dev_id) > - return -EINVAL; > + BUG_ON((irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && !dev_id); > + BUG_ON(!handler); > + > if (irq >= NR_IRQS) > return -EINVAL; > if (irq_desc[irq].status & IRQ_NOREQUEST) > - return -EINVAL; > - if (!handler) > return -EINVAL; > > action = kmalloc(sizeof(struct irqaction), GFP_ATOMIC);
If no driver is passing in args which will trigger this BUG, we presumably don't need the patch. If some driver _is_ passing in ags which will trigger these BUGs then it is presumably working OK anyway. Taking a working system and making it go BUG is likely to upset people. IOW: WARN_ON, please. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
