[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <fcec11aa-6d7a-a1ec-c68d-1a8559d79876@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:12:19 +0100
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>, borntraeger@...ibm.com
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com,
pasic@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, mimu@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] s390: ap: new vfio_ap_queue structure
On 25/03/2019 09:05, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
> On 22.03.19 15:43, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> The AP interruptions are assigned on a queue basis and
>> the GISA structure is handled on a VM basis, so that
...snip...
>> + * vfio_ap_queue_dev_remove:
>> + *
>> + * Free the associated vfio_ap_queue structure
>> + */
>> static void vfio_ap_queue_dev_remove(struct ap_device *apdev)
>> {
>> - /* Nothing to do yet */
>> + struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
>> +
>> + q = dev_get_drvdata(&apdev->device);
> I'd add a check if q != NULL here.
I wonder if this can ever happen.
However I added a check in the next patch.
I can move it here.
>> + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> + list_del(&q->list);
>> + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> + kfree(q);
> I would add a line:
> dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, NULL);
OK, I clean it before giving it back, fair.
Thanks.
Rgeards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
Powered by blists - more mailing lists