Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4920-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:15:25 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@kernel.org>,
	kuba@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
	"open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS)" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:QUALCOMM ATHEROS ATH10K WIRELESS DRIVER" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: allocate dummy net_device dynamically
Message-ID: <ZfnILSPBiqk8JdJ4@gmail.com>
References: <20240319104754.2535294-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <8771e856-3d9f-41c6-88c8-3c75e77b2aab@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8771e856-3d9f-41c6-88c8-3c75e77b2aab@quicinc.com>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 09:05:24AM -0700, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 3/19/2024 3:47 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > @@ -3687,6 +3690,8 @@ struct ath10k *ath10k_core_create(size_t priv_size, struct device *dev,
> >  
> >  err_free_coredump:
> >  	ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar);
> > +err_free_netdev:
> > +	free_netdev(ar->napi_dev);
> >  err_free_tx_complete:
> >  	destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete);
> >  err_free_aux_wq:
> > @@ -3708,6 +3713,7 @@ void ath10k_core_destroy(struct ath10k *ar)
> >  
> >  	destroy_workqueue(ar->workqueue_tx_complete);
> >  
> > +	free_netdev(ar->napi_dev);
> >  	ath10k_debug_destroy(ar);
> >  	ath10k_coredump_destroy(ar);
> >  	ath10k_htt_tx_destroy(&ar->htt);
> 
> looks like there is a pre-existing issue that the order of operations in
> _destroy() doesn't match the order of operations in the _create() error path.

Right. I found it weird as well. Basically "ath10k_coredump" and
"ath10k_debug" operations are swapped between ath10k_core_create() and
ath10k_core_destroy().

If you wish, I can submit a patch ordering it properly.

> but the placement of your changes looks ok to me

Right. It is done in-between the workqueues and the coredump/debug
creation/destroy.

Thanks for the review.