lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sysfs: handle duplicate removal attempts in sysfs_remove_group()
Date
On Monday, November 25, 2013 12:11:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:09:09AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:36:03 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 03:07:01 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:12:59AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 02:53:58 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can revert Mika's patch, as it would be good to catch these kinds of
> > > > > > errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we'll need to untangle the SATA/SCSI mess triggered by Bjorn in
> > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65281. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I have no objection to fixing that, the scsi sysfs handling is "odd" to
> > > > say the least...
> > > >
> > > > If someone can unwind it, that would be great to see happen...
> > >
> > > Well, if I'm bored to death during the xmas holidays, I may look into that.
> >
> > In fact, I'm not exactly sure why ata_port_detach() calls ata_tport_delete()
> > before scsi_remove_host()? Is there any particular reason? Because that
> > doesn't seem to be exactly right ...
>
> I tried so that I have your 'PCI: Move device_del() from pci_stop_dev() to
> pci_destroy_dev()' applied and then I did following change as you
> suggested.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 81a94a3919db..07a03f93d640 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -6304,10 +6304,10 @@ static void ata_port_detach(struct ata_port *ap)
> for (i = 0; i < SATA_PMP_MAX_PORTS; i++)
> ata_tlink_delete(&ap->pmp_link[i]);
> }
> - ata_tport_delete(ap);
> -
> /* remove the associated SCSI host */
> scsi_remove_host(ap->scsi_host);
> +
> + ata_tport_delete(ap);
> }
>
> /**
>
> After both patches are applied the warnings are gone :) However, looks like
> both are needed since if I only apply one or another, I still get warnings.

Yes, they are both needed. :-)

OK, I'll submit the above upstream if you don't mind.

Cheers, R.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-25 12:21    [W:0.191 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site