On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 18:18 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> wrote:
> > It might be worth warning on spurious IRQ events; they might
> > point someone at a bogus DTS value or similar.
> >
> > But ratelimit them to ensure we aren't too spammy about it.
> >
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org>
> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au>
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c
> > index 290559df1e8b..5c777e3a4c04 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c
> > @@ -497,10 +497,12 @@ void __do_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > may_hard_irq_enable();
> >
> > /* And finally process it */
> > - if (unlikely(irq == NO_IRQ))
> > + if (unlikely(irq == NO_IRQ)) {
> > + printk_ratelimited(KERN_WARNING "spurious irq on %d\n",
> > irq);
>
> If we did decide we cared about this patch, then no need for "irq" above, as
> we already know it is equal to NO_IRQ.
I'm not convinced it's worth printing, we already have a counter in proc.
I think it's more likely to just lead to console spam.
But maybe I'm wrong and you can convince me otherwise :)
cheers
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
