> On Jul 3, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2020-06-26 21:34, Mike Christie wrote: >> With Hannes not liking the refcounting/tricks in the sysfs approach >> I took another stab at configfs. This approach works similar to the >> loop/vhost/usb/xen nexus interface where there is a special file >> that allows userspace to add/remove sessions. > > Hi Mike, > > Are you perhaps referring to the comment in the following message? > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/f0bd2a33-c084-6c9b-faa1-9d92bdb2df7a@xxxxxxx/__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!L7jRHXS-8N1S4DIyD7kLwn1WPta5_ANJgQpJrI-fdmRlub6ViFCvtW0VCqwhN37bZMtc$ Yes. > The duplication of strings in that patch also looks weird to me. > I think kobject_del() waits for ongoing sysfs show and store callbacks to finish. Nice! I didn’t know that. I added that free_session callback for that reason. When testing I was just verifying that the callback was called when all refs to the file had dropped and didn’t check that it was actually device_del. > Since patch 12/15 adds a kobject_del() call in target_sysfs_remove_session(), is > that call perhaps sufficient to guarantee that the Yes. It’s doable. There might be an issue with one driver, but I can fix that up. > se_sess->se_node_acl->initiatorname pointer and similar pointers are all valid > at least as long the session sysfs object exists? > > Thanks, > > Bart.
