From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86302C433DB for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F3464E67 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230354AbhBSLV0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 06:21:26 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:34470 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229804AbhBSLUH (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 06:20:07 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CCB464E77; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:19:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1613733566; bh=YFg4Atmp59pHQeT8wPbE/amvEYcgx1e0rb0E2V1wsVI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CPQwToA/EWAwk27hMnWle2hs4utfQvNVMPw1h0h7/qLa3RjmZqFsCUAdKuqBxjEjQ yTmpuyV5C1bZEZQHFpRr9SB0d0dXuaxrfTED3E+DWTQkP+ntQDhgehhhqn386QsGP2 jvBtwfPVRF2KLV5Eb8ylf6V3hxPOgqwlaMGC0A4x3kIIYgf0W2/JwEu8rDFAxC4pkf /ZUAcJKvqdHgfoB+rrUqCCEgeHPPjZ3R3edCI71vugtkZCWJxwKPSEiw6or/YaBQ5v 13BOdBO1SlfmZGzpTXR2pi72xB9WzPoMd1wYX4BrvU6mncI2DbMS8rkJPmgOB4qcKM JLBnXKeqdc3/w== Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:19:20 +0100 From: Robert Richter To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Dejin Zheng , corbet@lwn.net, jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com, wsa@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, kw@linux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors() Message-ID: References: <20210216160249.749799-1-zhengdejin5@gmail.com> 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-pci@vger.kernel.org On 18.02.21 16:01:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The problem this series solves is an imbalanced API. This (added) API is bloated and incomplete. It adds functions without benefit, the only is to have a single pcim alloc function in addition to the pairing of alloc/free functions. I agree, it is hard to detect which parts are released if pcim_enable_device() is used. Additional, you need to go through pcim_release() to add other pcim_*() functions for everything else that is released there. Otherwise that new API is still incomplete. But this adds another bunch of useless functions. > Christoph IIRC was clear that if we want to use PCI IRQ allocation API the > caller must know what's going on. Hiding this behind the scenes is not good. > And this series unhides that. IMO, this is more a documentation issue. pcim_enable_device() must be better documented and list all enable/alloc functions that are going to be released out of the box later. Even better, make sure everything is managed and thus all of a pci_dev is released, no matter how it was setup (this could even already be the case). In addition you could implement a static code checker. > Also, you may go and clean up all pci_free_irq_vectors() when > pcim_enable_device() is called, but I guess you will get painful process and > rejection in a pile of cases. Why should something be rejected if it is not correctly freed? Even if pci_free_irq_vectors() is called, pcim_release() will not complain if it was already freed before. So using pci_free_irq_vectors() is ok even in conjunction with pcim_enable_device(). In the end, let's make sure everything is released in pci_dev if it is managed and document this. Thanks, -Robert