On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 05:56:45PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> For the error handling to work as expected, the index in the
> 'oct->msix_entries' array must be tweaked because, when the irq are
> requested there is:
> msix_entry = &oct->msix_entries[i + num_non_ioq_msix];
>
> So in the error handling path, 'i + num_non_ioq_msix' should be used
> instead of 'i'.
>
> The 2nd argument of free_irq() also needs to be adjusted.
>
> Fixes: 37d79d059606 ("octeon_ep: add Tx/Rx processing and interrupt support")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I think that the wording above is awful, but I'm sure you get it.
> Feel free to rephrase everything to have it more readable.
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_main.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_main.c
> index 6b60a03574a0..4dcae805422b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_main.c
> @@ -257,10 +257,12 @@ static int octep_request_irqs(struct octep_device *oct)
>
> return 0;
> ioq_irq_err:
> + i += num_non_ioq_msix;
> while (i > num_non_ioq_msix) {
This makes my mind hurt so badly. Can we not just have two variables
for the two different loops instead of re-using i?
> --i;
> irq_set_affinity_hint(oct->msix_entries[i].vector, NULL);
> - free_irq(oct->msix_entries[i].vector, oct->ioq_vector[i]);
> + free_irq(oct->msix_entries[i].vector,
> + oct->ioq_vector[i - num_non_ioq_msix]);
> }
ioq_irq_err:
while (--j >= 0) {
ioq_vector = oct->ioq_vector[j];
msix_entry = &oct->msix_entries[j + num_non_ioq_msix];
irq_set_affinity_hint(msix_entry->vector, NULL);
free_irq(msix_entry->vector, ioq_vector);
}
regards,
dan carpenter
