Re: [PATCH 14/14] xen: events: propagate irq allocation failureinstead of panicking

[Ian Campbell]

On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 05:38 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:41:26PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Running out of IRQs need not be fatal to the machine as a whole.
> 
> Do the backends/frontends deal with this appropiately?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/xen/events.c |   22 ++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > index 51c6a5b..c6f2a2e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void xen_irq_init(unsigned irq)
> >  	list_add_tail(&info->list, &xen_irq_list_head);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int xen_allocate_irq_dynamic(void)
> > +static int __must_check xen_allocate_irq_dynamic(void)
> 
> What is the '__must_check' for?

It makes gcc warn if callers don't check the return code. Perhaps
overkill for so few callers but it made it easy to be sure I'd
propagated the error code.

Ian.



--
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/