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
