Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: viio_trigger_alloc(): Correctly free trigger on error

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 15:00:38 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 11:15 AM Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote:
> > On 10/31/21 9:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Sunday, October 31, 2021, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de
> > > <mailto:lars@metafoo.de>> wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > >     -       if (trig->subirq_base) {
> > >     +       if (trig->subirq_base > 0) {
> > >  
> > > >= ?  
> >
> > I don't know. 0 is not supposed to be a valid irq number. And we
> > kzalloc() the struct, so if it hasn't been explicitly initialized we'd
> > get 0.  
> 
> But it will change the behaviour of the code.
> >=0 is the opposite of replacing < 0.  
> 
> 
> > The way the code is at the moment we'd never end up here without calling
> > irq_alloc_descs(), so it is either a valid irq or a negative error code
> > and I can see why you might want to use >= for consistency and symmetry.  
> 
> Right!
> 
> (But on some architectures and cases 0 might be a valid vIRQ)
> 
Given I'm fairly sure this will be after any other irqs we should be fine
but I don't think it would be a problem to allow 0.

If that's fine with both of you I can just change it to >= 0 whilst
applying, or Lars can do a v2 when has time.

Thanks,

Jonathan