Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures"

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 07/26/2014 08:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning
>>> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even
>>> build tested.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>>
>>
>> Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-(
>>
>> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>
> I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo)
> because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my
> reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html
>
> W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc
> I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the
> value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed.
> I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework
> itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)?
>
> W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same.
> I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero
> value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it
> incarnation.
>
In my understanding, anything not equal to 0 means that an interrupt
is pending, not that there was an error. Maybe my understanding is wrong.

Either case, I don't really care.

Guenter