Re: [-mm patch] aic7xxx: check irq validity (was Re: 2.6.18-mm2)

[Arjan van de Ven]

> .
> 
> And it doesn't need to be a __must_check.  There's no point -- it has
> no side-effects.  The only reason to call it is if you want the answer
> to the question.  You had the sense of the return code wrong too; you
> want to use it as:
> 
> int pci_request_irq(struct pci_dev *pdev, irq_handler_t handler,
> 			unsigned long flags, const char *name, void *data)
> {
> 	if (!valid_irq(pdev->irq)) {
> 		dev_printk(KERN_ERR, &pdev->dev, "invalid irq\n");
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	}
> 
> 	return request_irq(pdev->irq, handler, flags | IRQF_SHARED, name, data);
> }


well... why not go one step further and eliminate the flags argument
entirely? And use pci_name() for the name (so eliminate the argument ;)
and always pass pdev as data, so that that argument can go away too....

that'll cover 99% of the request_irq() users for pci devices.. and makes
it really nicely simple and consistent.

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/