[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca56b654-c088-4c04-8b00-b24067dd2ec1@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:11:07 +0000
From: Diogo Ivo <diogo.ivo@...mens.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: danishanwar@...com, rogerq@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch,
vigneshr@...com, jan.kiszka@...mens.com, robh@...nel.org,
grygorii.strashko@...com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Remove duplicate cleanup calls
in emac_ndo_stop()
On 2/8/24 13:33, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:47:00AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 03:20:51PM +0000, Diogo Ivo wrote:
>>> Remove the duplicate calls to prueth_emac_stop() and
>>> prueth_cleanup_tx_chns() in emac_ndo_stop().
>>>
>>> Fixes: 128d5874c082 ("net: ti: icssg-prueth: Add ICSSG ethernet driver")
>>> Fixes: 186734c15886 ("net: ti: icssg-prueth: add packet timestamping and ptp support")
>>> Signed-off-by: Diogo Ivo <diogo.ivo@...mens.com>
>> Hi Doigo,
>>
>> I see that there are indeed duplicate calls,
>> but I do wonder if this is a cleanup rather than a bug:
>> is there a user-visible problem that this addresses?
>>
>> If so, I think it would be good to spell this out in the commit message.
>>
>> ...
> So far as I can see from reviewing the code there is no user visible
> effect.
>
> rproc_shutdown() calls rproc_stop() which sets "rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;"
> so the second call will return be a no-op and return -EINVAL. But the
> return value is not checked so no problem.
>
> prueth_cleanup_tx_chns() uses memset to zero out the emac->tx_chns[] so
> the second call will be a no-op.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Yes, it is just a code cleanup. Is the commit message fine as it is?
Best regards,
Diogo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists