Hi,
On 11/27/19 5:49 PM, Jiang Yi wrote:
> Since irq_bypass_register_producer() is called after request_irq(), we
> should do tear-down in reverse order: irq_bypass_unregister_producer()
> then free_irq().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Yi <giangyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> index 3fa3f728fb39..2056f3f85f59 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> @@ -289,18 +289,18 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
> int irq, ret;
>
> if (vector < 0 || vector >= vdev->num_ctx)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> irq = pci_irq_vector(pdev, vector);
>
> if (vdev->ctx[vector].trigger) {
> - free_irq(irq, vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
> irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
> + free_irq(irq, vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
Looks the right way too
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
May be worth checking it does not alter the x86 posted interrupt setup
though. update_pi_irte() gets called. I was concerned about the fact the
interrupts may be enabled when doing the unregistration (TBC). The
irq_bypass framework offers producer start/stop callbacks that would
allow to handle this but nobody use them atm.
Thanks
Eric
> kfree(vdev->ctx[vector].name);
> eventfd_ctx_put(vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
> vdev->ctx[vector].trigger = NULL;
> }
>
> if (fd < 0)
> return 0;
>
>
