>From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 9:25 AM
>
>On Sun, 2023-06-11 at 11:36 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:18:46PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx
>wrote:
>> > From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > +int dpll_device_register(struct dpll_device *dpll, enum dpll_type
>type,
>> > + const struct dpll_device_ops *ops, void *priv)
>> > +{
>> > + struct dpll_device_registration *reg;
>> > + bool first_registration = false;
>> > +
>> > + if (WARN_ON(!ops))
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > + if (WARN_ON(type < DPLL_TYPE_PPS || type > DPLL_TYPE_MAX))
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + mutex_lock(&dpll_lock);
>> > + reg = dpll_device_registration_find(dpll, ops, priv);
>> > + if (reg) {
>> > + mutex_unlock(&dpll_lock);
>> > + return -EEXIST;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + reg = kzalloc(sizeof(*reg), GFP_KERNEL);
>> > + if (!reg) {
>> > + mutex_unlock(&dpll_lock);
>> > + return -EEXIST;
>> > + }
>> > + reg->ops = ops;
>> > + reg->priv = priv;
>> > + dpll->type = type;
>> > + first_registration = list_empty(&dpll->registration_list);
>> > + list_add_tail(®->list, &dpll->registration_list);
>> > + if (!first_registration) {
>> > + mutex_unlock(&dpll_lock);
>> > + return 0;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + xa_set_mark(&dpll_device_xa, dpll->id, DPLL_REGISTERED);
>> > + mutex_unlock(&dpll_lock);
>> > + dpll_device_create_ntf(dpll);
>>
>> This function is introduced in the next patch. Breaks bissection. Make
>> sure you can compile the code after every patch applied.
>
>WRT, I think the easiest way to solve the above is adding the function
>call in the next patch.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paolo
Sure, will try to fix as suggested, but this will be much easier to do on
final version of patches before sending.
Thank you,
Arkadiusz
