On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 08:28 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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
I agree the above would be more readable. @Christophe: could you please
refactor the code as per Dan's suggestion?
Thanks!
Paolo
