在 2021/11/19 23:43, Sergei Shtylyov 写道:
Hello!
On 19.11.2021 7:11, Baokun Li wrote:
Trying to remove the fsl-sata module in the PPC64 GNU/Linux
leads to the following warning:
------------[ cut here ]------------
remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'irq/69',
leaking at least 'fsl-sata[ff0221000.sata]'
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1048 at fs/proc/generic.c:722
.remove_proc_entry+0x20c/0x220
IRQMASK: 0
NIP [c00000000033826c] .remove_proc_entry+0x20c/0x220
LR [c000000000338268] .remove_proc_entry+0x208/0x220
Call Trace:
.remove_proc_entry+0x208/0x220 (unreliable)
.unregister_irq_proc+0x104/0x140
.free_desc+0x44/0xb0
.irq_free_descs+0x9c/0xf0
.irq_dispose_mapping+0x64/0xa0
.sata_fsl_remove+0x58/0xa0 [sata_fsl]
.platform_drv_remove+0x40/0x90
.device_release_driver_internal+0x160/0x2c0
.driver_detach+0x64/0xd0
.bus_remove_driver+0x70/0xf0
.driver_unregister+0x38/0x80
.platform_driver_unregister+0x14/0x30
.fsl_sata_driver_exit+0x18/0xa20 [sata_fsl]
---[ end trace 0ea876d4076908f5 ]---
The driver creates the mapping by calling irq_of_parse_and_map(),
so it also has to dispose the mapping. But the easy way out is to
simply use platform_get_irq() instead of irq_of_parse_map().
Not that easy. :-)
In this case the mapping is not managed by the device but by
the of core, so the device has not to dispose the mapping.
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
index 30759fd1c3a2..011daac4a14e 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
@@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static int sata_fsl_probe(struct
platform_device *ofdev)
host_priv->ssr_base = ssr_base;
host_priv->csr_base = csr_base;
- irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0);
+ irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0);
if (!irq) {
if (irq < 0) {
platform_get_irq() returns negative error codes, not 0 on failure.
[...]
MBR, Sergey
.
I didn't notice the change in this return value, and the test didn't
cover the error branch.
Thank you very much for your advice.
I'm about to send a patch v2 with the changes suggested by you.
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.
