On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 13:58 -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Ben Hutchings
> <ben.hutchings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 09:53 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Vikas Gupta <vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit c58387ab1614f6d7fb9e244f214b61e7631421fc ]
> > >
> > > Fix bug in the error code path when bnxt_request_irq() returns
> > > failure.
> > > bnxt_disable_napi() should not be called in this error path
> > > because
> > > NAPI has not been enabled yet.
> >
> > [...]
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
> > > @@ -4591,7 +4591,7 @@ static int __bnxt_open_nic(struct bnxt *
> > > rc = bnxt_request_irq(bp);
> > > if (rc) {
> > > netdev_err(bp->dev, "bnxt_request_irq err:
> > > %x\n", rc);
> > > - goto open_err;
> > > + goto open_err_irq;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -4629,6 +4629,8 @@ static int __bnxt_open_nic(struct bnxt *
> > >
> > > open_err:
> > > bnxt_disable_napi(bp);
> > > +
> > > +open_err_irq:
> > > bnxt_del_napi(bp);
> >
> > Shouldn't this added statement be conditional on irq_re_init?
> >
>
> Unconditional call is more correct, because when open fails, we clean
> up everything, including the NAPI that was added just now or during a
> previous call.
>
> In other words, the NAPI struct is always valid here whether
> irq_re_init is true or not. And we always delete it if open fails.
OK, I see.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street
Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
