Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4099DC433F5 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244880AbhLJSCR (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:17 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:5780 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235392AbhLJSCQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:16 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10194"; a="238347542" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,196,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="238347542" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Dec 2021 09:58:41 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,196,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="544053703" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.184]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Dec 2021 09:58:39 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1mvk9M-004bBe-TE; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:57:40 +0200 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:57:40 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sergey Shtylyov Cc: Damien Le Moal , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hans de Goede , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ata: libahci_platform: Get rid of dup message when IRQ can't be retrieved Message-ID: References: <20211209145937.77719-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <587c35bd-8877-030e-6236-d0d8c2b6811c@omp.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <587c35bd-8877-030e-6236-d0d8c2b6811c@omp.ru> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 07:38:40PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote: > On 12/10/21 11:47 AM, Andy Shevchenko 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; > > -ENXIO seems to me more fitting indeed (than -EINVAL that I used). > > > > > No, this is wrong for the same reasons I explained to Sergey. > > I fail to understand you, sorry. We're going in circles, it seems... :-/ platform_get_irq_optional() is supposed to return 0 when there is no IRQ found, but everything else went alright. I'm tired to waste my time to go circles. Again, the problem is that platform_get_irq_optional() has wrong set of output values. And your patch doesn't fix that. And it has nothing to do with my code here. > > The problem is that this is _optional API and it has been misdesigned. > > Replacing things like above will increase the mess. > > What's wrong with replacing IRQ0 with -ENXIO now? platform_get_irq_optional() > (as in your patch) could then happily return 0 ISO -ENXIO. Contrarywise, if we don't > replace IRQ0 with -ENXIO, platform_get_irq_optional() will return 0 for both IRQ0 > and missing IRQ! Am I clear enough? If you don't understand me now, I don't know what > to say... :-/ See above. Read my messages again, please. I'm really tired to explain again and again the same. TL;DR: You simply try to "fix" in a correct place but in a wrong way. > >> return ret; > >> > >> Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ? > > > > No. This is not a business of the caller to workaround implementation > > details (bugs) of the core APIs. > > If something goes wrong, then it's platform_get_irq() to blame, and > > not the libahci_platform. > > I'm repeating myself already: we don't work around the bug in platform_get_irq(), Yes, you do. > we're working around the driver subsystems that treat 0 specially (and so don't > support IRQ0); libata treats 0 as an indication of the polling mode (moreover, > it will curse if you pass to it both IRQ == 0 and a pointer to an interrupt handler! > Am I clear enough this time? :-) Yes, and it doesn't contradict to what my patch does. Read comment against platform_get_irq(). If it returns 0, it's not a business of the callers to work around it. Am I clear enough this time? :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko