On 9/07/21 2:28 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:43 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Managed device links are deleted by device_del(). However it is possible to
>> add a device link to a consumer before device_add(), and then discover an
>> error prevents the device from being used. In that case normally references
>> to the device would be dropped and the device would be deleted. However the
>> device link holds a reference to the device, so the device link and device
>> remain indefinitely.
>>
>> Amend device link removal to accept removal of a link with an
>> unregistered consumer device.
>>
>> To make that work nicely, the devlink_remove_symlinks() function must be
>> amended to cope with the absence of the consumer's sysfs presence,
>> otherwise sysfs_remove_link() will generate a warning.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Fixes: b294ff3e34490 ("scsi: ufs: core: Enable power management for wlun")
>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/core.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>> index ea5b85354526..24bacdb315c6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>> @@ -562,7 +562,8 @@ static void devlink_remove_symlinks(struct device *dev,
>> struct device *con = link->consumer;
>> char *buf;
>>
>> - sysfs_remove_link(&link->link_dev.kobj, "consumer");
>> + if (device_is_registered(con))
>> + sysfs_remove_link(&link->link_dev.kobj, "consumer");
>
> I think that this is needed regardless of the changes in
> device_link_put_kref(), because if somebody decides to delete a
> stateless device link before registering the consumer device,
> sysfs_remove_link() will still complain, won't it?
I would think so.
>
>> sysfs_remove_link(&link->link_dev.kobj, "supplier");
>>
>> len = max(strlen(dev_bus_name(sup)) + strlen(dev_name(sup)),
>> @@ -575,8 +576,10 @@ static void devlink_remove_symlinks(struct device *dev,
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - snprintf(buf, len, "supplier:%s:%s", dev_bus_name(sup), dev_name(sup));
>> - sysfs_remove_link(&con->kobj, buf);
>> + if (device_is_registered(con)) {
>> + snprintf(buf, len, "supplier:%s:%s", dev_bus_name(sup), dev_name(sup));
>> + sysfs_remove_link(&con->kobj, buf);
>> + }
>
> And here too, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> So in that case it would be better to put the above changes into a
> separate patch and add a Fixes tag to it.
Yes, that makes sense. I'll send a V3
>
>> snprintf(buf, len, "consumer:%s:%s", dev_bus_name(con), dev_name(con));
>> sysfs_remove_link(&sup->kobj, buf);
>> kfree(buf);
>> @@ -885,6 +888,8 @@ static void device_link_put_kref(struct device_link *link)
>> {
>> if (link->flags & DL_FLAG_STATELESS)
>> kref_put(&link->kref, __device_link_del);
>> + else if (!device_is_registered(link->consumer))
>> + __device_link_del(&link->kref);
>> else
>> WARN(1, "Unable to drop a managed device link reference\n");
>> }
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
