[BUG] irq_dispose_mapping after irq request failure
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Feb 12 19:53:37 EST 2013
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 17:18 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> I don't think you can, "active" is not well defined. Other code may have
> done nothing other than create the mapping and remembered the virq,
> which will break if you destroy the mapping. Or?
Active as in "requested". Yes there's a potential problems with multiple
requests for mappings & shared interrupts. This is not a problem for PCI
on powerpc because we don't free those mappings afaik.
> I agree refcounting is not fun. It'll end up with the same mess as
> of_node_get/put() where practically every 2nd piece of code leaks
> references.
>
> I guess we can't go the other way, and say that mapping the same hwirq
> twice is an error.
Might be worth it, and force the sharing case to be handled at some kind
of upper level (bus or platform).
Ben.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list