On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 12:05:50PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:33:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:50 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:55:57AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > Sure, the difference in ordering was pretty obvious. What is not > > > obvious is why this should cause a problem. > > > > It may be not causing any problem right now, but with all these small > > steps we may come to the case like DWC3 removal mess. > > > > > Do you think that the host controller driver is going to try to use the > > > IRQ vector somewhere between the pci_free_irq_vectors call and the > > > usb_put_hcd call? If that's not going to happen then I don't see what > > > difference the order of the two calls makes. > > > > I think that this is a bit incorrect to rely on side-effects to ruin > > the clear understanding of what ordering is going on. If you insist, > > you can take John's solution, but I won't give a tag on such. > > > > Also take into consideration the possible copy'n'paste of this example > > to other drivers. I have seen a lot of bad examples were > > copied'n'pasted all over the kernel during my reviews. I don't want to > > give another one. > > > > So, the review process, in my opinion, should be slightly broader that > > we usually understand it, i.e. take into account: > > - *run-time* bisectability > > - possible copy'n'paste of the code excerpts > > I see. So you use "correct" in the broader sense of "good form" as well > as strict correctness. (It was confusing because I wouldn't conflate > those two different concepts.) Thank you for clarification, I'm not native speaker and this is a good learn to me. I will try to use better wording in the future. > Okay, now your reply makes sense. Thanks! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
