On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:43 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:40 AM David Jeffery <djeffery@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + * Wait for all async shutdown operations currently active to complete > > + */ > > +static void wait_for_active_async_shutdown(void) > > +{ > > + struct device *dev, *parent; > > + > > + while (!list_empty(&async_shutdown_list)) { > > + dev = list_entry(async_shutdown_list.next, struct device, > > + kobj.entry); > > + > > + parent = dev->parent; > > I didn't check the code thoroughly, but so there might be other big > issues. But you definitely need to take device links into account. > Shutdown all your consumers first similar to how you shutdown the > children devices first. Look at the async suspend/resume code for some > guidance. > Sure, I'll work on adding that into the order rules. > > @@ -110,6 +115,8 @@ struct device_driver { > > void (*sync_state)(struct device *dev); > > int (*remove) (struct device *dev); > > void (*shutdown) (struct device *dev); > > + void (*async_shutdown_start) (struct device *dev); > > + void (*async_shutdown_end) (struct device *dev); > > Why not use the existing shutdown and call it from an async thread and > wait for it to finish? Similar to how async probes are handled. Also, > adding separate ops for this feels clunky and a very narrow fix. Just > use a flag to indicate the driver can support async shutdown using the > existing shutdown() op. > It is rather clunky. It was carried from older patches where I mistakenly thought people wanted this separate interface. And adding threads seemed like overkill. Others have been working on similar patches on linux-nvme that I was unaware of. They add an optional shutdown_wait call instead of this interface. I had planned on adapting to work with their interface design. David Jeffery