[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010182311110.6815@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:17:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, irq: Check if irq is remapped before freeing irte
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int get_irte(int irq, struct irte *entry
> > unsigned long flags;
> > int index;
> >
> > - if (!entry || !irq_iommu)
> > + if (!entry || !irq_iommu || !irq_iommu->iommu)
> > return -1;
>
> Hmm, why do we need this? This is only called from
> ir_ioapic_set_affinity() and ir_msi_set_affinity().
>
> We should never end up there when intr_remapping=off, right ?
Thinking more about it, this check is actively bogus. The call sites do:
struct irte irte;
if (get_irte(irq, &irte))
return -1;
So entry _CANNOT_ be NULL.
And in fact we should change get_irte() to
get_irte(struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu, struct irte *entry)
The call site already knows about it. No need to lookup irq_iommu
based on the irq number.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists