From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] acpi: Fix proper return code for function acpi_gsi_to_irq Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:59:36 +0000 Message-ID: <56954D18.1010306@arm.com> References: <1446857519-5908-1-git-send-email-lho@apm.com> <1446857519-5908-2-git-send-email-lho@apm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:36562 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752859AbcALS7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:59:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1446857519-5908-2-git-send-email-lho@apm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Loc Ho , dougthompson@xmission.com, bp@alien8.de, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org, fu.wei@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org Cc: jcm@redhat.com, patches@apm.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Tuan Phan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On 07/11/15 00:51, Loc Ho wrote: > The function acpi_gsi_to_irq should returns 0 on success as upper function > caller expect an 0 for sucesss. I have to ask: why do you feel the need to change an API that behaves like the rest of the IRQ allocation functions (at least when it comes to its return value)? 0 is defined as an invalid interrupt, and I wish it stayed that way. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...