Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()

[Philipp Stanner]

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 11:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 10:35:19AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > pci_intx() is a hybrid function which can sometimes be managed
> > through
> > devres. This hybrid nature is undesirable.
> > 
> > Since all users of pci_intx() have by now been ported either to
> > always-managed pcim_intx() or never-managed pci_intx_unmanaged(),
> > the
> > devres functionality can be removed from pci_intx().
> > 
> > Consequently, pci_intx_unmanaged() is now redundant, because
> > pci_intx()
> > itself is now unmanaged.
> > 
> > Remove the devres functionality from pci_intx(). Remove
> > pci_intx_unmanaged().
> > Have all users of pci_intx_unmanaged() call pci_intx().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I don't like when we change a function like this but it still
> compiles fine.
> If someone is working on a driver and hasn't pushed it yet, then it's
> probably
> supposed to be using the new pcim_intx() but they won't discover that
> until they
> detect the leaks at runtime.

There wouldn't be any *leaks*, it's just that the INTx state would not
automatically be restored. BTW the official documentation in its
current state does not hint at pci_intx() doing anything automatically,
but rather actively marks it as deprecated.

But you are right that a hypothetical new driver and OOT drivers could
experience bugs through this change.

> 
> Why not leave the pci_intx_unmanaged() name.  It's ugly and that will
> discorage
> people from introducing new uses.

I'd be OK with that. Then we'd have to remove pci_intx() as it has new
users anymore.

Either way should be fine and keep the behavior for existing drivers
identical.

I think Bjorn should express a preference

P.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>