[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63fbba26-82f4-5c4b-90d6-d951eb914f50@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 12:41:40 +0200
From: Marion & Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: cumana_2: Fix different dev_id between
'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()'
Le 30/05/2020 à 11:43, Russell King - ARM Linux admin a écrit :
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> The dev_id used in 'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()' should match.
>> So use 'host' in both cases.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> This is itself wrong. cumanascsi_2_intr() requires "info" as the devid.
> Either cumanascsi_2_intr() needs changing to use shost_priv(host) along
> with this change, or free_irq() needs changing to use "info".
My bad.
I've only looked at the difference of the dev_id for the 2 functions,
not at the usage of it with the function registered by 'request_irq'.
This one is obviously correct, or the driver would have some problems
somewhere.
I don't know why have chosen to change request_irq and not free_irq.
So obvious. I'm a little embarrassed and will send a v2.
Thx for the quick reply and review.
All the 3 patches being in "/drivers/scsi/arm/", do you prefer only 1
patch for the 3, or separated as I've done so far?
CJ
> Likely the same for the other patches, I haven't looked.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists