On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:37 AM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 28/11/2017 17:04, Cong Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't understand, the only caller of sas_unregister_domain_devices() >>>> is sas_deform_port(). >>>> >>> >>> And sas_deform_port() may be called from another worker on the same queue, >>> right? As in sas_phye_loss_of_signal()->sas_deform_port() >> >> Oh, good catch! I didn't notice this subtle call path. >> >> Do you have any better idea to fix this? We saw this on 4.9 too. >> > > I think we can just cancel the destruct work before calling > sas_port_delete(). This should work even if it is called in > another work. > This assumes sas_port_delete() could release resources recursively in the hierarchy, this is true for sysfs but perhaps not true for other resources...
