On 04/14/2014 09:40 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 16:14 +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
On 04/10/2014 07:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 15:10 +0800, hongbo.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[]
@@ -819,8 +826,7 @@ static void fsldma_cleanup_descriptor(struct fsldma_chan *chan,
dma_run_dependencies(txd);
dma_descriptor_unmap(txd);
- chan_dbg(chan, "LD %p free\n", desc);
- dma_pool_free(chan->desc_pool, desc, txd->phys);
+ fsl_dma_free_descriptor(chan, desc);
Here is no list_del() call since it's been called in dma_do_tasklet().
What will be the result of double list_del() against the same node?
Not clear with your point.
This patch is only introducing a common fsl_dma_free_descriptor() to
reduce code duplication. And later in the patch 6/8 the
fsldma_cleanup_descriptor() is replaced by fsldma_cleanup_descriptorS().
In the last case you could have a broken kernel which will fails on
double list_del(). I think it's better to leave this one untouched and
you may remove it later.
Or move this patch after you have removed that lines.
Good catch, thank you Andy.
Yes I prefer to leave this untouched and handle it later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
