>>> On 11.08.10 at 15:43, Wei Wang2 <wei.wang2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> static int __pci_enable_msi(struct msi_info *msi, struct msi_desc **desc)
> {
> int status;
> struct pci_dev *pdev;
>+ struct msi_desc *old_desc;
>
> ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pcidevs_lock));
> pdev = pci_get_pdev(msi->bus, msi->devfn);
> if ( !pdev )
> return -ENODEV;
>
>- if ( find_msi_entry(pdev, msi->irq, PCI_CAP_ID_MSI) )
>+ old_desc = find_msi_entry(pdev, msi->irq, PCI_CAP_ID_MSI);
>+ if ( old_desc )
> {
> dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "irq %d has already mapped to MSI on "
> "device %02x:%02x.%01x.\n", msi->irq, msi->bus,
> PCI_SLOT(msi->devfn), PCI_FUNC(msi->devfn));
>+ *desc = old_desc;
While I agree to this part, ...
> return 0;
> }
>
>- if ( find_msi_entry(pdev, -1, PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX) )
>+ old_desc = find_msi_entry(pdev, -1, PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX);
>+ if ( old_desc )
> {
> dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "MSI-X is already in use on "
> "device %02x:%02x.%01x\n", msi->bus,
> PCI_SLOT(msi->devfn), PCI_FUNC(msi->devfn));
>- return 0;
>+ pci_disable_msi(old_desc);
... I don't think this one's right: Admittedly I should have changed
the return value from 0 to an actual error (e.g. -EBUSY) - I simply
overlooked that after doing the copy-and-paste operation.
Whether disabling and switching to the alternative mechanism
is the right thing to do here I don't know. But I'm pretty certain
that old_desc may now be leaked, as msi_free_irq() isn't being
called on it and set_irq_msi() also doesn't check whether
irq_desc[].msi_desc is already non-NULL.
Same thing (obviously) for the second part of the changes.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|