> > > On 2019-12-11 18:37, Avri Altman wrote: > >> > >> In ufshcd_remove(), after SCSI host is removed, put it once so that > >> its resources can be released. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is not really part of this patchset, is it? > > > > Hi Avri, > > I put this change in the same patchset due to #1. The main patch has > dependency on it #2. Consider a scenario where platform driver is also compiled > as a module, say ufs_qcom.ko. > In this case, we have two modules, ufs-qcom.ko and ufs-bsg.ko. If do insmod > ufs-qcom.ko > then rmmod ufs-qcom.ko and do insmod ufs-qcom.ko again, without this > change, because scsi > host was not release, the new scsi host will have a different host number, > meaning > hba->host->host_no will be 1, but not 0. Now if do insmod ufs-bsg.ko now, > the ufs-bsg dev > created in /dev/bsg/ will be ufs-bsg1, but not ufs-bsg0. If keep trying these > operations, > the ufs-bsg device's name will be messed up. This change make sure after ufs- > qcom.ko is removed > and installed back, its hba->host->host_no stays 0, so that ufs-bsg device > name stays same. Looks like we needed to manage the ufs-bsg nodes using an IDA, instead of host_no? > > Thanks, > > Can Guo. > > >> --- > >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > >> index b5966fa..a86b0fd 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > >> @@ -8251,6 +8251,7 @@ void ufshcd_remove(struct ufs_hba *hba) > >> ufs_bsg_remove(hba); > >> ufs_sysfs_remove_nodes(hba->dev); > >> scsi_remove_host(hba->host); > >> + scsi_host_put(hba->host); > >> /* disable interrupts */ > >> ufshcd_disable_intr(hba, hba->intr_mask); > >> ufshcd_hba_stop(hba, true); > >> -- > >> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora > >> Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
