On 08/01/2020 16:08, John Garry wrote:
On 08/01/2020 16:01, James Bottomley wrote:
cdev->dev = NULL;
return device_add(&cdev->cdev);
}
}
return -ENODEV;
}
The design of the code is simply to remove the link to the inserted
device which has been removed.
I*think* this means the calls to device_del and device_add are
unnecessary and should go. enclosure_remove_links and the put of
the
enclosed device should be sufficient.
That would make more sense than trying to "reuse" the device
structure
here by tearing it down and adding it back.
OK, let's try that. This should be the patch if someone can try it
(I've compile tested it, but the enclosure system is under a heap of
stuff in the garage).
I can test it now.
Yeah, that looks to have worked ok. SES disk locate was also fine after
losing and rediscovering the disk.
Thanks,
John
But it is a bit suspicious that we had the device_del() and device_add()
at all, especially since the code change makes it look a bit more like
pre-43d8eb9cfd0 ("ses: add support for enclosure component hot removal")
John
James
---
diff --git a/drivers/misc/enclosure.c b/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
index 6d27ccfe0680..3c2d405bc79b 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
@@ -406,10 +406,9 @@ int enclosure_remove_device(struct
enclosure_device *edev, struct device *dev)
cdev = &edev->component[i];
if (cdev->dev == dev) {
enclosure_remove_links(cdev);
- device_del(&cdev->cdev);
put_device(dev);
cdev->dev = NULL;
- return device_add(&cdev->cdev);
+ return 0;
}
}
return -ENODEV;
_______________________________________________
Linuxarm mailing list
Linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx
http://hulk.huawei.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxarm
.
