On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:12:48PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On 3/23/20 5:26 PM, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> > +void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev,
> > + enum pci_channel_state state,
> > + pci_ers_result_t (*reset_link)(struct pci_dev *pdev))
> > {
> > pci_ers_result_t status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER;
> > struct pci_bus *bus;
> > @@ -206,9 +165,12 @@ void pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, enum pci_channel_state state,
> > pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast error_detected message\n");
> > if (state == pci_channel_io_frozen) {
> > pci_walk_bus(bus, report_frozen_detected, &status);
> > - status = reset_link(dev, service);
> > - if if (reset_link)
> status = reset_link(dev);(status == PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT
> > + status = reset_link(dev);
> Above line needs to be replaced as below. Since there is a
> possibility reset_link can NULL (eventhough currently its
> not true).
> if (reset_link)
> status = reset_link(dev);
> Shall I submit another version to add above fix on top of
> our pci/edr branch ?
No, I can squash that in if needed.
But I don't actually think we *do* need it. All the callers supply a
valid reset_link function pointer, and if somebody changes or adds a
new one that doesn't, I'd rather take the null pointer exception and
find out about it than silently ignore it.
Bjorn
