On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 11:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 10:35:19AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > pci_intx() is a hybrid function which can sometimes be managed > > through > > devres. This hybrid nature is undesirable. > > > > Since all users of pci_intx() have by now been ported either to > > always-managed pcim_intx() or never-managed pci_intx_unmanaged(), > > the > > devres functionality can be removed from pci_intx(). > > > > Consequently, pci_intx_unmanaged() is now redundant, because > > pci_intx() > > itself is now unmanaged. > > > > Remove the devres functionality from pci_intx(). Remove > > pci_intx_unmanaged(). > > Have all users of pci_intx_unmanaged() call pci_intx(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I don't like when we change a function like this but it still > compiles fine. > If someone is working on a driver and hasn't pushed it yet, then it's > probably > supposed to be using the new pcim_intx() but they won't discover that > until they > detect the leaks at runtime. There wouldn't be any *leaks*, it's just that the INTx state would not automatically be restored. BTW the official documentation in its current state does not hint at pci_intx() doing anything automatically, but rather actively marks it as deprecated. But you are right that a hypothetical new driver and OOT drivers could experience bugs through this change. > > Why not leave the pci_intx_unmanaged() name. It's ugly and that will > discorage > people from introducing new uses. I'd be OK with that. Then we'd have to remove pci_intx() as it has new users anymore. Either way should be fine and keep the behavior for existing drivers identical. I think Bjorn should express a preference P. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
