lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-16 07:29    [W:0.090 / U:4.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site