Re: [PATCH] BUG_ON() bad input to request_irq

2008-01-23 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thursday 24 January 2008 09:04:14 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:59:58 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If no driver is passing in args which will trigger this BUG, we presumably > don't need the patch. You're only thinking of current code. The BUG catches future chan

Re: [PATCH] BUG_ON() bad input to request_irq

2008-01-23 Thread Andrew Morton
> 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: Rust

[PATCH] BUG_ON() bad input to request_irq

2008-01-16 Thread Rusty Russell
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