On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 07:01:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:36:37PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> > > index 7461a58..dcf2c72 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> > > @@ -2524,7 +2524,7 @@ static int ahci_host_activate_multi_irqs(struct ata_host *host,
> > >
> > > /* Do not receive interrupts sent by dummy ports */
> > > if (!pp) {
> > > - disable_irq(irq + i);
> > > + disable_irq(irq);
> > > continue;
> > > }
> >
> > I'm not following. The driver at that point has irqs in the range
> > [@irq, @irq + @host->n_ports - 1] and is trying to activate them and
> > the above code block disables irq for a port which should be skipped.
> > Why wouldn't it need to be indexed?
>
> Because ahci_irq_vector does that indexing already. This call changed
> when Dan added ahci_irq_vector to support the MSI-X case - since
> then ahci_irq_vector either does the base irq + index logic for
> MSI or uses the msix_entries array for MSI-X, and irq contains the
> result of that operation.
lol, sorry. Was looking at an old (v4.0) tree. Applying to
libata/for-4.8-fixes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
