Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: events: free irqs in error condition

[Shah, Amit]

On Mi, 2018-02-28 at 08:16 +0000, Roger Pau Monnà 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 Monnà 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 <mirhadih@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Roger Pau Monnà <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Eduardo Valentin <eduval@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Liu Shuo <shuo.a.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Anoob Soman <anoob.soman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <aams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Âdrivers/xen/events/events_base.c | 5 ++++-
> > > > Â1 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,
> > > > Â
> > > > Â	ret = irq_set_msi_desc(irq, msidesc);
> > > > Â	if (ret < 0)
> > > > -		goto error_irq;
> > > > +		goto error_desc;
> > > > Âout:
> > > > Â	mutex_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> > > > Â	return irq;
> > > > Âerror_irq:
> > > > +	while (--nvec >= i)
> > > > +		xen_free_irq(irq + nvec);
> > > > +error_desc:
> > > > Â	while (i > 0) {
> > > > Â		i--;
> > > > Â		__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 :)

				Amit

Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Berlin - Dresden - Aachen
main office: Krausenstr. 38, 10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Ralf Herbrich, Christian Schlaeger
Ust-ID: DE289237879
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 149173 B