netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: gianfar: use devm for request

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <fecc95be-eec6-4c79-9ae3-438f24f85122@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 23:32:20 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
Cc: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	claudiu.manoil@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: gianfar: use devm for request_irq

On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:29:04PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 12:37 AM Maxime Chevallier
> <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rosen,
> >
> > On Tue,  1 Oct 2024 14:22:03 -0700
> > Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c | 67 +++++++-----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > > index 07936dccc389..78fdab3c6f77 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > > @@ -2769,13 +2769,6 @@ static void gfar_netpoll(struct net_device *dev)
> > >  }
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > -static void free_grp_irqs(struct gfar_priv_grp *grp)
> > > -{
> > > -     free_irq(gfar_irq(grp, TX)->irq, grp);
> > > -     free_irq(gfar_irq(grp, RX)->irq, grp);
> > > -     free_irq(gfar_irq(grp, ER)->irq, grp);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  static int register_grp_irqs(struct gfar_priv_grp *grp)
> > >  {
> > >       struct gfar_private *priv = grp->priv;
> > > @@ -2789,80 +2782,58 @@ static int register_grp_irqs(struct gfar_priv_grp *grp)
> > >               /* Install our interrupt handlers for Error,
> > >                * Transmit, and Receive
> > >                */
> > > -             err = request_irq(gfar_irq(grp, ER)->irq, gfar_error, 0,
> > > -                               gfar_irq(grp, ER)->name, grp);
> > > +             err = devm_request_irq(priv->dev, gfar_irq(grp, ER)->irq,
> > > +                                    gfar_error, 0, gfar_irq(grp, ER)->name,
> > > +                                    grp);
> >
> > This is called during open/close, so the lifetime of the irqs
> > isn't tied to the struct device, devm won't apply here. If you
> > open/close/re-open the device, you'll request the same irq multiple
> > times.
> Good point. Would it make sense to move to probe?

Do you have the hardware? Can you test such a change?

	Andrew