Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp4304427pxu; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:05:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymIYEfx7hxlkD5I2s8kzI0aMOVjAx6A1nMmjDtPSnTFBoYqliqm2FPqXhVly+AjLf8L/hF X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f13:: with SMTP id d19mr16623459ejr.54.1608570319563; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:05:19 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1608570319; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ll81HOWAF58GRp9lFEB+ifREsczYWsu3fTqD62MEjzOUzLfob+ef/p/sFQceOLFLsq lp1J0i+9YravYdCsblOFX0Vu4cSc4vaugHsMYnxqIBkFDaEyGSZ/YwuS187LG4oL0UZY DraAvLkyjVj1Uikfvhf8xzHzK8kIvYZTfLWbxoWepj9xfSsY+fpKU45oN5bA6BsVXflc vLL/CYwfy/b8rdyt6zq0FeHMukplsshKaYV8qEUvIyGeZWe4msfUU2ULFpo8OEWNxRI+ r3pncm2ztkgKmCUmjNfX3HpmGrdfdmVPdhPUR3DZ5sQjnTVlapiVLqYPYwF9Qzp+k3AZ b13Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=kKB+Sxju5hHmxfi71j8zITb22Tgqt71fpOZNRuFtSjs=; b=ksxTnh6IYO+UA9taYU1cMilQ84jET83n0GGP4NUJ4tB1vVNCzyicz4kLhj8pLeMut7 mgfI/WRAGUvt50FcjxJZooeqoio8Bvm7tjXNf1YJP/dfgr7SAcK+yKn4z3sJBdld1P4R Zqo1EQ/7VP7XyzL4uDWCES019s2ByLUn3hNdgII5dlyl9fPXlQ1G4GY3vYYeds9fyW8R XgEo8Ltwz6r3jIzMQhlgd/eT9or1Mhmhfu+a0Eju9l+RwpyrqYCJxJGpknWoCfD+dHy+ TJs43qpyE7od2z/LsVOUL1OyYsfxqq2FmdaoiwzR2tk4h13siFCVb2TcK4i11/KKcAns sHOg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e16si9005048eja.462.2020.12.21.09.04.56; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726832AbgLURC2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:02:28 -0500 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:35906 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725963AbgLURC1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:02:27 -0500 Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1krOZ3-00DAeh-TR; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:01:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:01:41 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: "David S . Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Networking , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Miguel Ojeda , Arnd Bergmann , Heiner Kallweit Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: lantiq_etop: check the result of request_irq() Message-ID: <20201221170141.GI3026679@lunn.ch> References: <20201221054323.247483-1-masahiroy@kernel.org> <20201221152645.GH3026679@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:59:08AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:26 AM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:43:23PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > The declaration of request_irq() in is marked as > > > __must_check. > > > > > > Without the return value check, I see the following warnings: > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c: In function 'ltq_etop_hw_init': > > > drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c:273:4: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] > > > 273 | request_irq(irq, ltq_etop_dma_irq, 0, "etop_tx", priv); > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c:281:4: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] > > > 281 | request_irq(irq, ltq_etop_dma_irq, 0, "etop_rx", priv); > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c > > > index 2d0c52f7106b..960494f9752b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c > > > @@ -264,13 +264,18 @@ ltq_etop_hw_init(struct net_device *dev) > > > for (i = 0; i < MAX_DMA_CHAN; i++) { > > > int irq = LTQ_DMA_CH0_INT + i; > > > struct ltq_etop_chan *ch = &priv->ch[i]; > > > + int ret; > > > > > > ch->idx = ch->dma.nr = i; > > > ch->dma.dev = &priv->pdev->dev; > > > > > > if (IS_TX(i)) { > > > ltq_dma_alloc_tx(&ch->dma); > > > - request_irq(irq, ltq_etop_dma_irq, 0, "etop_tx", priv); > > > + ret = request_irq(irq, ltq_etop_dma_irq, 0, "etop_tx", priv); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + netdev_err(dev, "failed to request irq\n"); > > > + return ret; > > > > You need to cleanup what ltq_dma_alloc_tx() did. > > > Any failure from this function will roll back > in the following paths: > > ltq_etop_hw_exit() > -> ltq_etop_free_channel() > -> ltq_dma_free() > > > So, dma is freed anyway. O.K, thanks for the information. > One problem I see is, > ltq_etop_hw_exit() frees all DMA channels, > some of which may not have been allocated yet. > > If it is a bug, it is an existing bug. > > > > > > > + } > > > } else if (IS_RX(i)) { > > > ltq_dma_alloc_rx(&ch->dma); > > > for (ch->dma.desc = 0; ch->dma.desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; > > > @@ -278,7 +283,11 @@ ltq_etop_hw_init(struct net_device *dev) > > > if (ltq_etop_alloc_skb(ch)) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > This -ENOMEM does not roll back anything here. > > As stated above, dma_free_coherent() is called. > The problem is, ltq_etop_hw_exit() rolls back too much. > > If your requirement is "this driver is completely wrong. Please rewrite it", > sorry, I cannot (unless I am paid to do so). > > I am just following this driver's roll-back model. > > Please do not expect more to a person who > volunteers to eliminate build warnings. There is a balance here. We should not remove a warning unless we properly fix the warning. Otherwise having the warning is pointless. So please leave the warning in place, and maybe somebody else will fully fix it. Andrew