From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] request_irq() always returns -EINVAL with a NULL handler. Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:15:02 -0800 Message-ID: <20080202221502.76d48ead.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200801171757.59026.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Rusty Russell Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:57946 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751776AbYBCGPF (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:15:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200801171757.59026.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:57:58 +1100 Rusty Russell wrote: > I assume that these ancient network drivers were trying to find out if > an irq is available. eepro.c expecting +EBUSY was doubly wrong. > > I'm not sure that can_request_irq() is the right thing, but these drivers > are definitely wrong. > > request_irq should BUG() on bad input, and these would have been found > earlier. This breaks non-CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS architectures. alpha: drivers/net/3c503.c: In function 'el2_open': drivers/net/3c503.c:382: error: implicit declaration of function 'can_request_irq'