On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Internal error codes happen to be positive, thus the PCI driver
> core won't treat them as failure, but we do. This would cause a
> crash later on as lpfc_pci_remove_one() is called (e.g. as
> shutdown function).
>
> Fixes: 6d368e532168 ("[SCSI] lpfc 8.3.24: Add resource extent support")
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <[email protected]>
> ---
> This seems to have been ignored. Re-sending as suggested by Johannes.
>
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> index 491aa95eb0f6..38cc2b5bb5a2 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> @@ -6118,6 +6118,7 @@ lpfc_sli4_driver_resource_setup(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
> "Extents and RPI headers enabled.\n");
> }
> mempool_free(mboxq, phba->mbox_mem_pool);
> + rc = -EIO;
> goto out_free_bsmbx;
> }
>
> --
> 2.9.4
The patch looks good, but there are lots of
if (rc) {
mempool_free(mboxq, phba->mbox_mem_pool);
rc = -EIO;
goto out_free_bsmbx;
}
in lpfc_sli4_driver_resource_setup(). Shouldn't out_free_bsmbx take care of it
all so we only have:
if (rc)
goto out_free_bsmbx;
Because as this patch shows there's always a chance to miss an 'rc = -EIO'.
Out of curiosity, do you know what's the value of rc in the failure case?
Anyways:
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
[email protected] +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
