Hi, Christophe
在 2025/7/31 0:48, Christophe JAILLET 写道:
Le 30/07/2025 à 08:25, Pan Chuang a écrit :
+ * Return: IRQC_IS_HARDIRQ or IRQC_IS_NESTED on success, or a
negative error
+ * number.
+ */
+int devm_request_any_context_irq(struct device *dev, unsigned int irq,
+ irq_handler_t handler, unsigned long irqflags,
+ const char *devname, void *dev_id)
+{
+ int rc = __devm_request_any_context_irq(dev, irq, handler,
irqflags,
+ devname, dev_id);
+ if (rc < 0) {
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, rc, "request_irq(%u) %ps %s\n",
+ irq, handler, devname ? : "");
+ }
Extra { } should be removed.
From my PoV, it would look more logical to have the same logic in
devm_request_threaded_irq() and in devm_request_any_context_irq().
Why "if (!rc) SUCCESS" in one case, and "if (rc < 0) FAILURE" in the
other case?
Personally, I would change in devm_request_threaded_irq() above to have
if (rc)
return dev_err_probe();
return 0;
Thanks for your suggestion.
The return value of __devm_request_any_context_irq on success is either
IRQC_IS_HARDIRQ or IRQC_IS_NESTED (>= 0).
Therefore, we cannot directly use "if (rc)" to check for errors.
+
+ return rc;
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_request_any_context_irq);
On version 5 of the patch, there was a comment related to using
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), does it still make sense?
(no strong opinion from me, just noted that and wondered if done on
purpose)
Since it is an existing export, I will keep it as-is.
Thanks,
Pan Chuang
