On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:20:20AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > No any callers do care whether arch_setup_msi_irqs returns > -ENOSPC or other error numbers. That means they treat the > negative numbers in the same way. So there shouldn't make any > difference to directly return -ENOSPC if finding it's non-zero.
This return value gets returned all the way up to the external interfaces used by drivers, e.g., pci_enable_msi_range(), so it would take quite a lot of analysis to assert that *no* caller cares whether it's -ENOSPC or something else. I suspect you're right that it probably doesn't matter, but it looks pretty hard to prove it. > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > - fix warning generated by -Wmisleading-indentation reported by Kbuild robot > > drivers/pci/msi.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c > index a080f44..5057219 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ int __weak arch_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int > nvec, int type) > { > struct msi_controller *chip = dev->bus->msi; > struct msi_desc *entry; > - int ret; > + int ret = 0; I don't think this initialization is necessary. > if (chip && chip->setup_irqs) > return chip->setup_irqs(chip, dev, nvec, type); > @@ -121,9 +121,7 @@ int __weak arch_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int > nvec, int type) > > for_each_pci_msi_entry(entry, dev) { > ret = arch_setup_msi_irq(dev, entry); > - if (ret < 0) > - return ret; > - if (ret > 0) > + if (ret) > return -ENOSPC; > } > > -- > 2.3.7 > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
