[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZNPFGPXfCLfJMq3@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:26:28 +0100
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Winiarska, Iwona" <iwona.winiarska@...el.com>
Cc: "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com" <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"andrew@...id.au" <andrew@...id.au>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"d.mueller@...oft.ch" <d.mueller@...oft.ch>,
"jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"zweiss@...inix.com" <zweiss@...inix.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org" <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "joel@....id.au" <joel@....id.au>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com"
<pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] peci: Add device detection
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:35:23PM +0000, Winiarska, Iwona wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 19:49 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > > +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
> > > +{
> > > + bool killed;
> > > +
> > > + device_lock(&device->dev);
> > > + killed = kill_device(&device->dev);
> >
> > Eeek, why call this?
> >
> > > + device_unlock(&device->dev);
> > > +
> > > + if (!killed)
> > > + return;
> >
> > What happened if something changed after you unlocked it?
>
> We either killed it, or the other caller killed it.
>
> >
> > Why is kill_device() required at all? That's a very rare function to
> > call, and one that only one "bus" calls today because it is very
> > special (i.e. crazy and broken...)
>
> It's used to avoid double-delete in case of races between peci_controller
> unregister and "manually" removing the device using sysfs (pointed out by Dan in
> v2). We're calling peci_device_destroy() in both callsites.
> Other way to solve it would be to just have a peci-specific lock, but
> kill_device seemed to be well suited for the problem at hand.
> Do you suggest to remove it and just go with the lock?
Yes please, remove it and use the lock.
Also, why are you required to have a sysfs file that can remove the
device? Who wants that?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists