On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 16:14 +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: > On 04/10/2014 07:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 15:10 +0800, hongbo.zh...@freescale.com wrote:
[] > >> @@ -819,8 +826,7 @@ static void fsldma_cleanup_descriptor(struct > >> fsldma_chan *chan, > >> dma_run_dependencies(txd); > >> > >> dma_descriptor_unmap(txd); > >> - chan_dbg(chan, "LD %p free\n", desc); > >> - dma_pool_free(chan->desc_pool, desc, txd->phys); > >> + fsl_dma_free_descriptor(chan, desc); > > Here is no list_del() call since it's been called in dma_do_tasklet(). > > What will be the result of double list_del() against the same node? > > Not clear with your point. > This patch is only introducing a common fsl_dma_free_descriptor() to > reduce code duplication. And later in the patch 6/8 the > fsldma_cleanup_descriptor() is replaced by fsldma_cleanup_descriptorS(). In the last case you could have a broken kernel which will fails on double list_del(). I think it's better to leave this one untouched and you may remove it later. Or move this patch after you have removed that lines. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
