On 09/26/2012 12:22 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>>> + } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, data->affinity))
>>> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, data->affinity);
>>>
>>
>> You meant to use 'affinity' (instead of data->affinity) in the above 2
>> statements
>> right? Note that we do chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true); further
>> down.
>>
>
> Yes, I have noticed it, used data->affinity here is just for avoiding compile
> warning.
> in fact affinity == data->affinity, but affinity pointer is const type,
> And cpumask_clear_cpu needs non-const type,so here I am using data->affinity,
> instead of changing code "const struct cpumask *affinity;"
>
Hmm.. Then what happens to error handling in the case that you can't set
the affinity?
ie., if we take the 'else' branch in:
if (chip->irq_set_affinity)
chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
else if (!(warned++))
set_affinity = 0;
In that case, we would end up with an incorrect data->affinity right?
Btw, on a slightly different note, I'm also rather surprised that the above
code doesn't care about the return value of chip->irq_set_affinity() ..
Shouldn't we warn if that fails?
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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/
