netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3 2/4] net: txgbe: remove separate irq request for MSI and INTx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZoVl4YqVG4Hv94qU@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 16:53:21 +0200
From: Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>
To: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <horms@...nel.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	<mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>, <duanqiangwen@...-swift.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 2/4] net: txgbe: remove separate irq request for
 MSI and INTx

On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Michal Kubiak wrote:

> >  	if (!(pdev->msix_enabled)) {
> > -		free_irq(pdev->irq, wx);
> > +		if (!wx->misc_irq_domain)
> > +			free_irq(pdev->irq, wx);
> 
> Does it mean "pdev->irq" will never be freed if you set misc_irq_domain
> to "true"? It seems you set it to true always during the initializaion,
> in "txgbe_setup_misc_irq()"?

[...]

> 
> 
> I don't think that introducing a kind of global variable to determine the call
> context is a good idea.
> Also, it seems that member is always true after the "probe" context is
> completed, isn't it?
> 

[...]

> 
> Is there any chance that member will be set back to "false" after the
> initialization is completed?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Michal
> 

OK, I think I understood that change better. You probably just want to
distinguish the calling your library function between "ngbe" and "txgbe"
drivers.
In such a case using a structure member in your board structure seems to
be justified. If so, please ignore my questions.

Anyway, I didn't notice that the patch is already applied to the tree
before I sent my comment. Apologies for that.

Thanks,
Michal