Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: sim: dispose of irq mappings before destroying the irq_sim domain

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 02:38:28PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 2:24 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 2:12 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 09:51:21AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > > +static void gpio_sim_dispose_mappings(void *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     struct gpio_sim_chip *chip = data;
> > > > > +     unsigned int i, irq;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     for (i = 0; i < chip->gc.ngpio; i++) {
> > > > > +             irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->irq_sim, i);
> > > >
> > > > > +             if (irq)
> > > >
> > > > This duplicates check in the following call.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah so it can be a direct call:
> > >
> > >     irq_dispose_mapping(irq_find_mapping(chip->irq_sim, i));
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Hehe, seems yes and no. According to the code — yes, but code seems buggy,
> > and compiler may effectively drop the check (haven't checked this, though).
> >
> > OTOH, the problem may appear if and only if we have no sparse IRQ configuration
> > which is probably rare.
> >
> > That said, I will go without check, it's not your issue.
> > And I found other places in IRQ framework that misses that check.
> >
> 
> I disagree. If there's no strong contract from the provider of this
> function then this check is so cheap that I'm ready to live with it.

There are plenty of calls that don't check and there are calls that check.

> > > > > +                     irq_dispose_mapping(irq);
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko