Hi Saravana, Nuno, On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:37:05 -0800 Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > @@ -1202,6 +1202,12 @@ int of_overlay_remove(int *ovcs_id) > > goto out; > > } > > > > + /* > > + * Wait for any ongoing device link removals before removing some of > > + * nodes > > + */ > > + device_link_wait_removal(); > > + > > Nuno in his patch[1] had this "wait" happen inside > __of_changeset_entry_destroy(). Which seems to be necessary to not hit > the issue that Luca reported[2] in this patch series. Is there any > problem with doing that? Is it the right place to wait ? __of_changeset_entry_destroy() can do some of_node_put() and I am not sure that of_node_put() can call device_put() when the of_node refcount reachs zero. If of_node_put() cannot call device_put(), I think we can wait in the of_changeset_destroy(). I.e. the __of_changeset_entry_destroy() caller. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8-rc1/source/drivers/of/dynamic.c#L670 What do you think about this ? Does it make sense ? > > Luca for some reason did a unlock/lock(of_mutex) in his test patch and > I don't think that's necessary. > > Can you move this call to where Nuno did it and see if that works for > all of you? I will check. Best regards, Hervé
