[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131122160252.GA8981@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:02:52 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: handle duplicate removal attempts in
sysfs_remove_group()
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 08:43:55AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > So, we do have cases where the parent is removed before the child. I
> > suppose the parent pci bridge is removed already? AFAICS this
> > shouldn't break anything but people did seem to expect the removals to
> > be ordered from child to parent. Bjorn, is this something you expect
> > to happened?
>
> I do not expect a PCI bridge to be removed before the devices below
> it. We should be removing all the children before removing the parent
> bridge.
>
> But is this related to PCI? I don't see the connection yet. I tried
I'm not sure. It was from thunderbolt and nobody is reporting it on
other interconnects, so it could be.
> to look into this a bit (my notes are at
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65281), but I haven't
> figured out the big-picture problem yet.
>
> I don't have warm fuzzies that adding a "have we already removed this"
> check is the best resolution, but maybe that's just because I don't
> understand the problem.
Yeah, the whole thing is sorta pointless. Just issuing removal and
continuing on should do, IMHO.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists