Driver should call disable_pci_device() if it returns from pci_probe()
with error. Also it must not be called if pci_request_region() fails as
it means that somebody uses device resources and rules the device.
Move pci_enable_device() after checking moxa_boards[] to remove senseless
pci_enable_device()/pci_disable_device().
Signed-off-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/moxa.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/moxa.c b/drivers/char/moxa.c
index 107b0bd..0ea5aeb 100644
--- a/drivers/char/moxa.c
+++ b/drivers/char/moxa.c
@@ -939,11 +939,6 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
int board_type = ent->driver_data;
int retval;
- retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
- if (retval) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
- goto err;
- }
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BOARDS; i++)
if (moxa_boards[i].basemem == NULL)
@@ -956,6 +951,12 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
goto err;
}
+ retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
+ if (retval) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
+
board = &moxa_boards[i];
retval = pci_request_region(pdev, 2, "moxa-base");
@@ -1001,6 +1002,7 @@ err_base:
board->basemem = NULL;
err_reg:
pci_release_region(pdev, 2);
+ pci_disable_device(pdev);
err:
return retval;
}
--
1.7.0.4
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:49:10PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> Driver should call disable_pci_device() if it returns from pci_probe()
> with error. Also it must not be called if pci_request_region() fails as
> it means that somebody uses device resources and rules the device.
>
I think we should disable it actually. The comments on
pci_enable_device() and pci_disable_device() say that only the first and
last callers actually enable and disable it. The others just increment
or decrement a counter.
regards,
dan carpenter
> Move pci_enable_device() after checking moxa_boards[] to remove senseless
> pci_enable_device()/pci_disable_device().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/char/moxa.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/moxa.c b/drivers/char/moxa.c
> index 107b0bd..0ea5aeb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/moxa.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/moxa.c
> @@ -939,11 +939,6 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> int board_type = ent->driver_data;
> int retval;
>
> - retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> - if (retval) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
> - goto err;
> - }
>
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_BOARDS; i++)
> if (moxa_boards[i].basemem == NULL)
> @@ -956,6 +951,12 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> goto err;
> }
>
> + retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> + if (retval) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> board = &moxa_boards[i];
>
> retval = pci_request_region(pdev, 2, "moxa-base");
> @@ -1001,6 +1002,7 @@ err_base:
> board->basemem = NULL;
> err_reg:
> pci_release_region(pdev, 2);
> + pci_disable_device(pdev);
> err:
> return retval;
> }
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 09:22 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:49:10PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > Driver should call disable_pci_device() if it returns from pci_probe()
> > with error. Also it must not be called if pci_request_region() fails as
> > it means that somebody uses device resources and rules the device.
> >
>
> I think we should disable it actually. The comments on
> pci_enable_device() and pci_disable_device() say that only the first and
> last callers actually enable and disable it. The others just increment
> or decrement a counter.
See this thread: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/2/13/82
Specifically this mail:
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:51:26 -0500
From Jeff Garzik <>
...
You also need to consider situations such as out-of-tree drivers
for the same hardware (might not use PCI API), and situations where you
have peer devices discovered and used (PCI API doesn't have "hey, <this>
device is associated with <current driver>, too" capability).
...
Searching for 'pci_disable_device() inurl:lkml' doesn't give me newer info
aboud this problem, so I think it's better to play safe.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
> > Move pci_enable_device() after checking moxa_boards[] to remove senseless
> > pci_enable_device()/pci_disable_device().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/char/moxa.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/moxa.c b/drivers/char/moxa.c
> > index 107b0bd..0ea5aeb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/moxa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/moxa.c
> > @@ -939,11 +939,6 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > int board_type = ent->driver_data;
> > int retval;
> >
> > - retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> > - if (retval) {
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
> > - goto err;
> > - }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_BOARDS; i++)
> > if (moxa_boards[i].basemem == NULL)
> > @@ -956,6 +951,12 @@ static int __devinit moxa_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > goto err;
> > }
> >
> > + retval = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> > + if (retval) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't enable pci device\n");
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > board = &moxa_boards[i];
> >
> > retval = pci_request_region(pdev, 2, "moxa-base");
> > @@ -1001,6 +1002,7 @@ err_base:
> > board->basemem = NULL;
> > err_reg:
> > pci_release_region(pdev, 2);
> > + pci_disable_device(pdev);
> > err:
> > return retval;
> > }
> > --
> > 1.7.0.4
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 12:55:12PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 09:22 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:49:10PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > > Driver should call disable_pci_device() if it returns from pci_probe()
> > > with error. Also it must not be called if pci_request_region() fails as
> > > it means that somebody uses device resources and rules the device.
> > >
> >
> > I think we should disable it actually. The comments on
> > pci_enable_device() and pci_disable_device() say that only the first and
> > last callers actually enable and disable it. The others just increment
> > or decrement a counter.
>
> See this thread: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/2/13/82
>
> Specifically this mail:
>
> Date Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:51:26 -0500
> From Jeff Garzik <>
>
> ...
> You also need to consider situations such as out-of-tree drivers
> for the same hardware (might not use PCI API), and situations where you
> have peer devices discovered and used (PCI API doesn't have "hey, <this>
> device is associated with <current driver>, too" capability).
> ...
>
> Searching for 'pci_disable_device() inurl:lkml' doesn't give me newer info
> aboud this problem, so I think it's better to play safe.
>
That's ancient. That's a couple months before the start of git.
git show v2.6.12:drivers/pci/pci.c
In those days pci_enable/disable_device() were not nestable. These days
we can just unwind normally so it's a big improvement.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:58 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 12:55:12PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 09:22 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:49:10PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > > > Driver should call disable_pci_device() if it returns from pci_probe()
> > > > with error. Also it must not be called if pci_request_region() fails as
> > > > it means that somebody uses device resources and rules the device.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should disable it actually. The comments on
> > > pci_enable_device() and pci_disable_device() say that only the first and
> > > last callers actually enable and disable it. The others just increment
> > > or decrement a counter.
> >
> > See this thread: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/2/13/82
> >
> > Specifically this mail:
> >
> > Date Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:51:26 -0500
> > From Jeff Garzik <>
> >
> > ...
> > You also need to consider situations such as out-of-tree drivers
> > for the same hardware (might not use PCI API), and situations where you
> > have peer devices discovered and used (PCI API doesn't have "hey, <this>
> > device is associated with <current driver>, too" capability).
> > ...
> >
> > Searching for 'pci_disable_device() inurl:lkml' doesn't give me newer info
> > aboud this problem, so I think it's better to play safe.
> >
>
> That's ancient. That's a couple months before the start of git.
Yes, but I can't find more recent answer to this question.
>
> git show v2.6.12:drivers/pci/pci.c
>
> In those days pci_enable/disable_device() were not nestable. These days
> we can just unwind normally so it's a big improvement.
The thing is not in that pci_enable_device() is nestable, but in that
some buggy non-mainline drivers may not use PCI api, but use
request_*(). In this case PCI bus doesn't see this driver and tries to
call mainline driver probe(). It sees that resources are already
grabbed. The only reason can be another driver that rules this device
(or our kernel is crazy). As we are robust driver we don't want to break
this buggy third party driver :-)
If you know better solution please tell me :-)
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:02:52PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
> The thing is not in that pci_enable_device() is nestable, but in that
> some buggy non-mainline drivers may not use PCI api, but use
> request_*(). In this case PCI bus doesn't see this driver and tries to
> call mainline driver probe(). It sees that resources are already
> grabbed. The only reason can be another driver that rules this device
> (or our kernel is crazy). As we are robust driver we don't want to break
> this buggy third party driver :-)
>
What Jeff Garzik was saying in those days if two people called
pci_enable_device() it wasn't a problem, but if one person then called
pci_disable_device() the other person who still wanted it enabled was
screwed. That model was "*first* person out of the building lock the
door."
That was half a decade ago though. The fix that Jeff proposed wasn't
really a good one because there is no way people would get that right.
None of that applies any more. These days we just call enable when we
want it enabled and disable when we are done. All the dependencies are
handled for us.
In fact, if we try to use the old hacks and work arounds, that will cause
bugs in the new code...
regards,
dan carpenter