Re: [PATCH 1/1] irqchip/gicv3: remove duplicated parameter testing

[Marc Zyngier]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 07:54:58 +0100
Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Test hardware irq number from small to large, and add a blank above
> each comment. To make it more clear.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 15 +++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index fd8850d..f43cfa1 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -611,12 +611,6 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>  	/* SGIs are private to the core kernel */
>  	if (hw < 16)
>  		return -EPERM;
> -	/* Nothing here */
> -	if (hw >= gic_data.irq_nr && hw < 8192)
> -		return -EPERM;
> -	/* Off limits */
> -	if (hw >= GIC_ID_NR)
> -		return -EPERM;
> 
>  	/* PPIs */
>  	if (hw < 32) {
> @@ -624,13 +618,17 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>  		irq_domain_set_info(d, irq, hw, &gic_chip, d->host_data,
>  				    handle_percpu_devid_irq, NULL, NULL);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_NOAUTOEN);
> +		return 0;
>  	}
> +
>  	/* SPIs */
> -	if (hw >= 32 && hw < gic_data.irq_nr) {
> +	if (hw < gic_data.irq_nr) {
>  		irq_domain_set_info(d, irq, hw, &gic_chip, d->host_data,
>  				    handle_fasteoi_irq, NULL, NULL);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_PROBE);
> +		return 0;
>  	}
> +
>  	/* LPIs */
>  	if (hw >= 8192 && hw < GIC_ID_NR) {
>  		if (!gic_dist_supports_lpis())
> @@ -638,9 +636,10 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>  		irq_domain_set_info(d, irq, hw, &gic_chip, d->host_data,
>  				    handle_fasteoi_irq, NULL, NULL);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
> +		return 0;
>  	}
> 
> -	return 0;
> +	return -EPERM;
>  }
> 
>  static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,

Can you please explain the problem you're seeing and indicate how the
proposed fix is relevant to the problem? So far, I'm only seeing code
being moved around for no particular reason ("To make it more clear" is
really not enough a reason).

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/