Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EF0C433FE for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 02:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236343AbhKTCVs (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:21:48 -0500 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:14960 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232076AbhKTCVq (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:21:46 -0500 Received: from dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Hwxwb4GRnzZd00; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:16:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.174] (10.174.177.174) by dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:18:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] sata_fsl: fix warning in remove_proc_entry when rmmod sata_fsl To: Sergei Shtylyov , , , , , CC: , , Hulk Robot References: <20211119041128.2436889-1-libaokun1@huawei.com> <20211119041128.2436889-3-libaokun1@huawei.com> <283712c0-bab7-de13-fc27-6ae2e6f9532f@gmail.com> From: "libaokun (A)" Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:18:41 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <283712c0-bab7-de13-fc27-6ae2e6f9532f@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.174] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.88) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2021/11/19 23:43, Sergei Shtylyov 写道: > Hello! > > On 19.11.2021 7:11, Baokun Li wrote: > >> Trying to remove the fsl-sata module in the PPC64 GNU/Linux >> leads to the following warning: >>   ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>   remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'irq/69', >>     leaking at least 'fsl-sata[ff0221000.sata]' >>   WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1048 at fs/proc/generic.c:722 >>     .remove_proc_entry+0x20c/0x220 >>   IRQMASK: 0 >>   NIP [c00000000033826c] .remove_proc_entry+0x20c/0x220 >>   LR [c000000000338268] .remove_proc_entry+0x208/0x220 >>   Call Trace: >>    .remove_proc_entry+0x208/0x220 (unreliable) >>    .unregister_irq_proc+0x104/0x140 >>    .free_desc+0x44/0xb0 >>    .irq_free_descs+0x9c/0xf0 >>    .irq_dispose_mapping+0x64/0xa0 >>    .sata_fsl_remove+0x58/0xa0 [sata_fsl] >>    .platform_drv_remove+0x40/0x90 >>    .device_release_driver_internal+0x160/0x2c0 >>    .driver_detach+0x64/0xd0 >>    .bus_remove_driver+0x70/0xf0 >>    .driver_unregister+0x38/0x80 >>    .platform_driver_unregister+0x14/0x30 >>    .fsl_sata_driver_exit+0x18/0xa20 [sata_fsl] >>   ---[ end trace 0ea876d4076908f5 ]--- >> >> The driver creates the mapping by calling irq_of_parse_and_map(), >> so it also has to dispose the mapping. But the easy way out is to >> simply use platform_get_irq() instead of irq_of_parse_map(). > >   Not that easy. :-) > >> In this case the mapping is not managed by the device but by >> the of core, so the device has not to dispose the mapping. >> >> Reported-by: Hulk Robot >> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li >> --- >>   drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c | 4 +--- >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >> index 30759fd1c3a2..011daac4a14e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >> @@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static int sata_fsl_probe(struct >> platform_device *ofdev) >>       host_priv->ssr_base = ssr_base; >>       host_priv->csr_base = csr_base; >>   -    irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0); >> +    irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0); >>       if (!irq) { > >     if (irq < 0) { > >   platform_get_irq() returns negative error codes, not 0 on failure. > > [...] > > MBR, Sergey > . I didn't notice the change in this return value, and the test didn't cover the error branch. Thank you very much for your advice. I'm about to send a patch v2 with the changes suggested by you. -- With Best Regards, Baokun Li .