On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 10:45 +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > 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. > I don't think of_node_put() can call device_put(). At least by looking at: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8-rc5/source/drivers/of/dynamic.c#L326 > 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 ? I think it makes sense from a logical point of view. Like, let's flush the queue right before checking our assumptions... In my tests, I did not saw any issue (Hopefully I was not missing any subtlety). - Nuno Sá
