On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 4:47:07 AM CEST Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:36 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 8:50:38 AM CEST Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > commit 52cdbdd49853 ("driver core: correct device's shutdown order")
> > > > places an assumption of supplier<-consumer order on the process of probe.
> > > > But it turns out to break down the parent <- child order in some scene.
> > > > E.g in pci, a bridge is enabled by pci core, and behind it, the devices
> > > > have been probed. Then comes the bridge's module, which enables extra
> > > > feature(such as hotplug) on this bridge.
> > >
> > > So what *exactly* does happen in that case?
> > >
> > I saw the shpc_probe() is called on the bridge, although the probing
> > failed on that bare-metal. But if it success, then it will enable the
> > hotplug feature on the bridge.
>
> I don't understand what you are saying here, sorry.
>
On the system, I observe the following:
[ 2.114986] devices_kset: Moving 0004:00:00.0 to end of list
<---pcie port drive's probe, but it failed
[ 2.115192] devices_kset: Moving 0004:01:00.0 to end of list
[ 2.115591] devices_kset: Moving 0004:02:02.0 to end of list
[ 2.115923] devices_kset: Moving 0004:02:0a.0 to end of list
[ 2.116141] devices_kset: Moving 0004:02:0b.0 to end of list
[ 2.116358] devices_kset: Moving 0004:02:0c.0 to end of list
[ 3.181860] devices_kset: Moving 0004:03:00.0 to end of list
<---the ata disk controller which sits behind the bridge
[ 10.267081] devices_kset: Moving 0004:00:00.0 to end of list
<---shpc_probe() on this bridge, failed too.
As you can the the parent device "0004:00:00.0" is moved twice, and
finally, it is after the "0004:03:00.0", this will break the
"parent<-child" order in devices_kset. This is caused by the code
really_probe()->devices_kset_move_last(). Apparently, it makes
assumption that child device's probing comes after its parent's. But
it does not stand up in the case.
> device_reorder_to_tail() walks the entire device hierarchy below the target
> and moves all of the children in there *after* their parents.
>
As described, the bug is not related with device_reorder_to_tail(), it
is related with really_probe()->devices_kset_move_last(). So [2/4]
uses different method to achieve the "parent<-child" and
"supplier<-consumer" order. The [3/4] clean up some code in
device_reorder_to_tail(), since I need to revert the commit.
> How can it break "the parent <- child order" then?
>
As described, it does not, just not be in use any longer.
Thanks and regards,
Pingfan
