From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marion & Christophe JAILLET Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 10:41:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: cumana_2: Fix different dev_id between 'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()' Message-Id: <63fbba26-82f4-5c4b-90d6-d951eb914f50@wanadoo.fr> List-Id: References: <20200530073555.577414-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20200530094338.GE1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200530094338.GE1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Le 30/05/2020 à 11:43, Russell King - ARM Linux admin a écrit : > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> The dev_id used in 'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()' should match. >> So use 'host' in both cases. >> >> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET > This is itself wrong. cumanascsi_2_intr() requires "info" as the devid. > Either cumanascsi_2_intr() needs changing to use shost_priv(host) along > with this change, or free_irq() needs changing to use "info". My bad. I've only looked at the difference of the dev_id for the 2 functions, not at the usage of it with the function registered by 'request_irq'. This one is obviously correct, or the driver would have some problems somewhere. I don't know why have chosen to change request_irq and not free_irq. So obvious. I'm a little embarrassed and will send a v2. Thx for the quick reply and review. All the 3 patches being in "/drivers/scsi/arm/", do you prefer only 1 patch for the 3, or separated as I've done so far? CJ > Likely the same for the other patches, I haven't looked. >