[PATCH] net: wan: farsync: disable PCI device on removal

[PATCH] net: wan: farsync: disable PCI device on removal

[Guangshuo Li]

fst_add_one() calls pci_enable_device() to enable the PCI device. The
probe failure paths call pci_disable_device() to release the matching
enable reference, but fst_remove_one() does not disable the device
after a successful probe.

As a result, the PCI device enable reference remains unbalanced after
the driver is removed.

Call pci_disable_device() after the existing interrupt, tasklet,
mapping, DMA and PCI region cleanup to release the enable reference.

This issue was found by manual code inspection.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/wan/farsync.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/farsync.c b/drivers/net/wan/farsync.c
index 6508c53bdc24..0ea637270ad7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wan/farsync.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wan/farsync.c
@@ -2561,6 +2561,7 @@ fst_remove_one(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 				  card->tx_dma_handle_card);
 	}
 	fst_card_array[card->card_no] = NULL;
+	pci_disable_device(pdev);
 	kfree(card);
 }
 
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] net: wan: farsync: disable PCI device on removal

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:31:18 +0800 Guangshuo Li wrote:
> fst_add_one() calls pci_enable_device() to enable the PCI device. The
> probe failure paths call pci_disable_device() to release the matching
> enable reference, but fst_remove_one() does not disable the device
> after a successful probe.
> 
> As a result, the PCI device enable reference remains unbalanced after
> the driver is removed.
> 
> Call pci_disable_device() after the existing interrupt, tasklet,
> mapping, DMA and PCI region cleanup to release the enable reference.
> 
> This issue was found by manual code inspection.

Ancient stuff, no point.

Re: [PATCH] net: wan: farsync: disable PCI device on removal

[krzk]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:31:18 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> fst_add_one() calls pci_enable_device() to enable the PCI device. The
> probe failure paths call pci_disable_device() to release the matching
> enable reference, but fst_remove_one() does not disable the device
> after a successful probe.
> 
> As a result, the PCI device enable reference remains unbalanced after
> the driver is removed.
> 
> Call pci_disable_device() after the existing interrupt, tasklet,
> mapping, DMA and PCI region cleanup to release the enable reference.
> 
> This issue was found by manual code inspection.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wan/farsync.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 


You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
do if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] net: wan: farsync: disable PCI device on removal

[Guangshuo Li]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your feedback.

On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 23:15, <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:31:18 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > fst_add_one() calls pci_enable_device() to enable the PCI device. The
> > probe failure paths call pci_disable_device() to release the matching
> > enable reference, but fst_remove_one() does not disable the device
> > after a successful probe.
> >
> > As a result, the PCI device enable reference remains unbalanced after
> > the driver is removed.
> >
> > Call pci_disable_device() after the existing interrupt, tasklet,
> > mapping, DMA and PCI region cleanup to release the enable reference.
> >
> > This issue was found by manual code inspection.
> >
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wan/farsync.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
>
>
> You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
> subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
> AI generated and most likely not tested.
>
> More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
> relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
> and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
> Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
> patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
> Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
> worrying.
>
> This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
> contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
> like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
> is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
> should be considered for review.
>
> Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
> explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
> subsystem, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
> do if this was posted in a good faith.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
I would like to clarify that these patches were manually reviewed and
audited by us; they were not simply generated and submitted by an LLM.
However, I understand why the recent submission pattern may have given
that impression. We sent too many patches in a short period of time,
and we also failed to respond to some discussions in a timely manner,
which made the situation look worse.

Many of the recent patches, especially the v2 revisions, are
corrections and improvements based on previous review feedback rather
than completely new untested changes. That said, we recognize that the
way we submitted them increased the burden on maintainers and
reviewers.

We apologize for the pressure this caused to the community. We will be
more careful about organizing patches by subsystem, preparing proper
patchsets, and following the kernel contribution guidelines before
sending future work.

Thank you again for pointing this out.

Best regards,
Guangshuo