Le 17/05/2022 à 10:35, Paolo Abeni a écrit :
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?
Will do.
I was sure that Dan would comment on this unusual pattern :)
CJ
Thanks!
Paolo
