On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 14:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:09:32PM +0100, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Let's use a dedicated queue for devlinks since releasing a link happens > > asynchronously but some code paths, like DT overlays, have some > > expectations regarding the of_node when being removed (the refcount must > > be 1). Given how devlinks are released that cannot be assured. Hence, add a > > dedicated queue so that it's easy to sync against devlinks removal. > > > > While at it, make sure to explicitly include <linux/workqueue.h>. > > ... > > > +++ b/include/linux/fwnode.h > > @@ -213,5 +213,6 @@ extern bool fw_devlink_is_strict(void); > > int fwnode_link_add(struct fwnode_handle *con, struct fwnode_handle *sup); > > void fwnode_links_purge(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > > void fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > > +void fwnode_links_flush_queue(void); > > I am not sure if you have seen my comment against v1. > I did received it like 30min ago... > I find the namespace a bit messy for devlinks. And to me seems the best place > for this line is to be before fwnode_links_purge(). > TBH, I'm not really keen on sending a v3 just for that (unless I'm asked otherwise). But If I have (still missing DT guys feedback), I'll do as you suggested. - Nuno Sá
