On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 15:30 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > mp_map_gsi_to_irq() in some cases might return legacy -1, which would > > be > > wrongly interpreted as -EPERM. > > > > Correct those cases to return proper error codes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c > > b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c > > index 945e512a112a..99cee86b7d17 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c > > @@ -1107,12 +1107,12 @@ int mp_map_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int > > flags, struct irq_alloc_info *info) > > > > ioapic = mp_find_ioapic(gsi); > > if (ioapic < 0) > > - return -1; > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > pin = mp_find_ioapic_pin(ioapic, gsi); > > idx = find_irq_entry(ioapic, pin, mp_INT); > > if ((flags & IOAPIC_MAP_CHECK) && idx < 0) > > - return -1; > > + return -ENODEV; > > Looking one more time... > Or should it be other way around: -ENODEV (ioapic < 0), -EINVAL (here)?
ENODEV for both cases I think,
