On 28/02/18 09:25, Shah, Amit wrote:
>
> On Mi, 2018-02-28 at 08:16 +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:32:53PM +0000, Shah, Amit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Di, 2018-02-27 at 17:07 +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:55:58PM +0000, Amit Shah wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In case of errors in irq setup for MSI, free up the allocated
>>>>> irqs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 4892c9b4ada9f9 ("xen: add support for MSI message
>>>>> groups")
>>>>> Reported-by: Hooman Mirhadi <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Boris Ostrovsky <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Eduardo Valentin <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Liu Shuo <[email protected]>
>>>>> CC: Anoob Soman <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/xen/events/events_base.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
>>>>> b/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
>>>>> index c86d10e..a299586 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
>>>>> @@ -750,11 +750,14 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct
>>>>> pci_dev
>>>>> *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
>>>>>
>>>>> ret = irq_set_msi_desc(irq, msidesc);
>>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>>> - goto error_irq;
>>>>> + goto error_desc;
>>>>> out:
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
>>>>> return irq;
>>>>> error_irq:
>>>>> + while (--nvec >= i)
>>>>> + xen_free_irq(irq + nvec);
>>>>> +error_desc:
>>>>> while (i > 0) {
>>>>> i--;
>>>>> __unbind_from_irq(irq + i);
>>>> It seems pointless to introduce another label and another loop to
>>>> fix
>>>> something that can be fixed with a single label and a single
>>>> loop,
>>>> this just makes the code more complex for no reason.
>>> I disagree, just because there are two different cleanups to be
>>> made
>>> for two different issues; it's not as if the if.. and else
>>> conditions
>>> are going to be interleaved.
>> Oh, I don't mind so much whether it ends up being two patches or a
>> single one, but IMHO the code should end up looking similar to what I
>> proposed, I would like to avoid having two loops and two labels.
>>
>> Could you rework the series so that the end result uses a single loop
>> (and label)?
>
> That was the part I didn't like much, so it would be better if the
> patch came from you :)
I'd prefer Roger's solution, too.
Roger, in case you don't want to write the patch, I can do it.
Juergen
