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?
Thanks
-Iwona
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
