Hi,
> Hi,
>
> Le 08/06/2022 à 08:08, Deming Wang a écrit :
> > Use ida_alloc_range()/ida_free() instead of deprecated
> > ida_simple_get()/ida_simple_remove() .
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deming Wang <wangdeming@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c index
> > 935a1d0ddb97..384049cfca8d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > @@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_release_dev(struct device
> *device)
> > struct vhost_vdpa *v =
> > container_of(device, struct vhost_vdpa, dev);
> >
> > - ida_simple_remove(&vhost_vdpa_ida, v->minor);
> > + ida_free(&vhost_vdpa_ida, v->minor);
> > kfree(v->vqs);
> > kfree(v);
> > }
> > @@ -1316,8 +1316,7 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_probe(struct vdpa_device
> *vdpa)
> > if (!v)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - minor = ida_simple_get(&vhost_vdpa_ida, 0,
> > - VHOST_VDPA_DEV_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + minor = ida_alloc_range(&vhost_vdpa_ida, 0, VHOST_VDPA_DEV_MAX -
> 1,
> > +GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ida_alloc_max() would be better here. It is less verbose.
>
> An explanation in the commit log of why the -1 is needed would also help
> reviewer/maintainer, IMHO.
>
> It IS correct, but it is not that obvious without looking at
> ida_simple_get() and ida_alloc_range().
>
> CJ
>
>
> > if (minor < 0) {
> > kfree(v);
> > return minor;
can I mention one patch about repair ida_free for this.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
