Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: fsi: Directly use ida_alloc()/free()
From: Christophe JAILLET
Date: Sat May 28 2022 - 08:33:05 EST
Hi,
Le 28/05/2022 à 13:35, Ke Liu a écrit :
Use ida_alloc()/ida_free() instead of deprecated
ida_simple_get()/ida_simple_remove().
Signed-off-by: Ke Liu <liuke94@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2 fix some bad modify
---
drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c | 14 +++++++-------
drivers/fsi/fsi-occ.c | 17 ++++++++---------
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c b/drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c
index 3a7b78e36701..10ef611058f0 100644
--- a/drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c
+++ b/drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c
@@ -951,7 +951,7 @@ static int __fsi_get_new_minor(struct fsi_slave *slave, enum fsi_dev_type type,
if (cid >= 0 && cid < 16 && type < 4) {
/* Try reserving the legacy number */
id = (cid << 4) | type;
- id = ida_simple_get(&fsi_minor_ida, id, id + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+ id = ida_alloc_range(&fsi_minor_ida, id, id, GFP_KERNEL);
if (id >= 0) {
*out_index = fsi_adjust_index(cid);
*out_dev = fsi_base_dev + id;
@@ -962,8 +962,8 @@ static int __fsi_get_new_minor(struct fsi_slave *slave, enum fsi_dev_type type,
return id;
/* Fallback to non-legacy allocation */
}
- id = ida_simple_get(&fsi_minor_ida, FSI_CHAR_LEGACY_TOP,
- FSI_CHAR_MAX_DEVICES, GFP_KERNEL);
+ id = ida_alloc_range(&fsi_minor_ida, FSI_CHAR_LEGACY_TOP,
+ FSI_CHAR_MAX_DEVICES - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
if (id < 0)
return id;
*out_index = fsi_adjust_index(id);
@@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fsi_get_new_minor);
void fsi_free_minor(dev_t dev)
{
- ida_simple_remove(&fsi_minor_ida, MINOR(dev));
+ ida_free(&fsi_minor_ida, MINOR(dev));
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fsi_free_minor);
@@ -1313,13 +1313,13 @@ int fsi_master_register(struct fsi_master *master)
struct device_node *np;
mutex_init(&master->scan_lock);
- master->idx = ida_simple_get(&master_ida, 0, INT_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
+ master->idx = ida_alloc(&master_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
Did you double check that it was correct?
'master->idx' is an 'int'.
Negative values have special meaning (see [1]). I think that this test
is useless and that we can't have a negative value here, but
nevertheless, it is an indication that it is expected not to be negative.
I would go for:
master->idx = ida_alloc_max(&master_ida, INT_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
I don't think that the -1 is needed here. INT_MAX is a valid 'int'.
However, all this should be explained in the changelog, so that a
reviewer understand your logic.
If you prefer to be safe, add the -1. The behavior will be as before.
[1]:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc7/source/drivers/fsi/fsi-core.c#L1339
dev_set_name(&master->dev, "fsi%d", master->idx);
master->dev.class = &fsi_master_class;
rc = device_register(&master->dev);
if (rc) {
- ida_simple_remove(&master_ida, master->idx);
+ ida_free(&master_ida, master->idx);
return rc;
}
@@ -1337,7 +1337,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fsi_master_register);
void fsi_master_unregister(struct fsi_master *master)
{
if (master->idx >= 0) {
- ida_simple_remove(&master_ida, master->idx);
+ ida_free(&master_ida, master->idx);
master->idx = -1;
}
diff --git a/drivers/fsi/fsi-occ.c b/drivers/fsi/fsi-occ.c
index c9cc75fbdfb9..63af5cad1015 100644
--- a/drivers/fsi/fsi-occ.c
+++ b/drivers/fsi/fsi-occ.c
@@ -630,17 +630,16 @@ static int occ_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
rc = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "reg", ®);
if (!rc) {
/* make sure we don't have a duplicate from dts */
- occ->idx = ida_simple_get(&occ_ida, reg, reg + 1,
- GFP_KERNEL);
+ occ->idx = ida_alloc_range(&occ_ida, reg, reg,
+ GFP_KERNEL);
GFP_KERNEL should be aligned below "&occ_ida".
Their are a few other similar issues below.
To spot such tiny issue, you can run:
./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict <path/name_of_your_patch>
if (occ->idx < 0)
- occ->idx = ida_simple_get(&occ_ida, 1, INT_MAX,
- GFP_KERNEL);
+ occ->idx = ida_alloc_min(&occ_ida, 1,
+ GFP_KERNEL);
Did you check that it was correct?
A few lines below, occ->idx is used as a %d in a snprintf().
A few lines later, it ends in "hwmon_dev_info.id" which is a 'int'.
So in order not to generate negatives id, the upper INT_MAX looks fine,
finally. So, my guess was wrong.
I would go for:
occ->idx = ida_alloc_range(&occ_ida, 1, INT_MAX,
GFP_KERNEL);
I don't think that the -1 is needed here. INT_MAX is a valid 'int'.
However, all this should be explained in the changelog, so that a
reviewer understand your logic.
If you prefer to be safe, add the -1. The behavior will be as before.
} else {
- occ->idx = ida_simple_get(&occ_ida, 1, INT_MAX,
- GFP_KERNEL);
+ occ->idx = ida_alloc_min(&occ_ida, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
}
And here.
} else {
- occ->idx = ida_simple_get(&occ_ida, 1, INT_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
+ occ->idx = ida_alloc_min(&occ_ida, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
And here.
}
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, occ);
@@ -654,7 +653,7 @@ static int occ_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
rc = misc_register(&occ->mdev);
if (rc) {
dev_err(dev, "failed to register miscdevice: %d\n", rc);
- ida_simple_remove(&occ_ida, occ->idx);
+ ida_free(&occ_ida, occ->idx);
kvfree(occ->buffer);
return rc;
}
@@ -677,7 +676,7 @@ static int occ_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
device_for_each_child(&pdev->dev, NULL, occ_unregister_child);
- ida_simple_remove(&occ_ida, occ->idx);
+ ida_free(&occ_ida, occ->idx);
return 0;
}