On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 18:58 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:31:26PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > free_irq() is called both in net_close() and cleanup_card(). Since it
> > is requested in at1700_probe1(), leave free_irq() only in cleanup_card()
> > for balance.
> >
>
> Are you sure? I would think that we should make the free_irq() in
> cleanup_card() conditional instead.
See balanced functions: net_open() & net_close(), at1700_probe1() &
cleanup_card(). request_irq() is in probe, so it must not be
freed on 'ifconfig down'. E.g.
modprobe at1700 <== request_irq()
ifconfig eth0 up
ifconfig eth0 down <== first free_irq()
ifconfig eth0 up <== no request_irq() here!
ifconfig eth0 down <== second free_irq()
rmmod at1700 <== third free_irq()
>
> > Signed-off-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/at1700.c | 4 +---
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/at1700.c b/drivers/net/at1700.c
> > index 93185f5..8987689 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/at1700.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/at1700.c
> > @@ -811,10 +811,8 @@ static int net_close(struct net_device *dev)
> > /* No statistic counters on the chip to update. */
> >
> > /* Disable the IRQ on boards of fmv18x where it is feasible. */
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It seems like this comment should be updated?
Maybe yes, but I don't know what these damn IO requests mean.
Sure, it's better to request IRQ in xxx_open(), but as it is already
done in probe() I leave it here.
If it is a bug then I do nothing with it, but if it is not then I'll
create a bug.
>
> > - if (lp->jumpered) {
> > + if (lp->jumpered)
> > outb(0x00, ioaddr + IOCONFIG1);
> > - free_irq(dev->irq, dev);
> > - }
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
