Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ata: libahci_platform: Get rid of dup message when IRQ can't be retrieved

[Sergey Shtylyov]

On 10.12.2021 22:35, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

[...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails.
> > > > > > > > > > > > No need to repeat this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills
> > > > > > > > > > > > out a big WARN() in such case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that
> > > > > > > > > > > platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc
> > > > > > > > > > > says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by
> > > > > > > > > > > platform_get_irq(), the out label is:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 	WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > 	return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to
> > > > > > > > > > > return -ENXIO:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 	if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
> > > > > > > > > > > 		return -ENXIO;
> > > > > > > > > > > 	return ret;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >     My unmerged patch (https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285) does this
> > > > > > > > > > but returns -EINVAL instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >     Of course it isn't...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's unsubstantiated statement. The vIRQ 0 shouldn't be returned by any of
> > > > > > > > > those API calls.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     We do _not_ know what needs to be fixed, that's the problem, and that's why the WARN()
> > > > > > > > is there...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, have you seen this warning (being reported) related to libahci_platform?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     No (as if you need to really see this while it's obvious from the code review).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If no, what we are discussing about then? The workaround is redundant and
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     I don't know. :-) Your arguments so far seem bogus (sorry! :-))...
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems you haven't got them at all. The problems of platform_get_irq() et al
> > > > > shouldn't be worked around in the callers.
> > > >
> > > >     I have clearly explained to you what I'm working around there. If that wasn't clear
> > > > enough, I don't want to continue this talk anymore. Good luck with your patch (not this
> > > > one).
> > >
> > > Good luck with yours, not the one that touches platform_get_irq_optional() though!
> >
> >     Mmh, I'm not touching it any way that would break what your patch was trying to do,
> > unless you've re-thopught that. It also shoudn't matter whose patch gets merged 1st
> > other than some small adaptation).
>
>     BTW, looking at [1], this comment is wrong:
>
> + * Return: non-zero IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure.
>
> It doesn't mention 0 which you return from this function.

   Also, your commit log is wrong in the description of how to handle the result:

<<
Now:
	ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
	if (ret != -ENXIO)
		return ret; // respect deferred probe
	if (ret > 0)
		...we get an IRQ...
>>

   The (ret != -ENXIO) check also succeeds on the (positive) IRQ #s, so the 
following code becomes unreachable. :-/

> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ed7027fdf4ec41ed6df6814956dc11860232a9d5

MBR, Sergey