On 19/11/2024 at 19:01, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> On 11/19/2024 11:26 AM, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>> On 19/11/2024 at 17:10, Ciprian Costea wrote:
(...)
>>> + if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & FLEXCAN_QUIRK_SECONDARY_MB_IRQ) {
>>> + err = request_irq(priv->irq_secondary_mb,
>>> + flexcan_irq, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto out_free_irq_err;
>>> + }
>>
>> Is the logic here correct?
>>
>> request_irq(priv->irq_err, flexcan_irq, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev);
>>
>> is called only if the device has the FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3 quirk.
>>
>> So, if the device has the FLEXCAN_QUIRK_SECONDARY_MB_IRQ but not the
>> FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3, you may end up trying to free an irq which was
>> not initialized.
>>
>> Did you confirm if it is safe to call free_irq() on an uninitialized irq?
>>
>> (and I can see that currently there is no such device with
>> FLEXCAN_QUIRK_SECONDARY_MB_IRQ but without FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3, but
>> who knows if such device will be introduced in the future?)
>>
>
> Hello Vincent,
>
> Thanks for your review. Indeed this seems to be an incorrect logic since
> I do not want to create any dependency between 'FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3'
> and 'FLEXCAN_QUIRK_SECONDARY_MB_IRQ'.
>
> I will change the impacted section to:
> if (err) {
> if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3)
> goto out_free_irq_err;
> else
> goto out_free_irq;
> }
This is better. Alternatively, you could move the check into the label:
out_free_irq_err:
if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & FLEXCAN_QUIRK_NR_IRQ_3)
free_irq(priv->irq_err, dev);
But this is not a strong preference, I let you pick the one which you
prefer.
>>> flexcan_chip_interrupts_enable(dev);
>>> netif_start_queue(dev);
>>> return 0;
>>> + out_free_irq_err:
>>> + free_irq(priv->irq_err, dev);
>>> out_free_irq_boff:
>>> free_irq(priv->irq_boff, dev);
>>> out_free_irq:
(...)
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
