On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 09:46 +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:28:14PM +0000, Rodríguez Barbarin, José > Javier wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-09-20 at 15:18 +0200, > > gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:49:28AM +0000, Rodríguez Barbarin, > > > José > > > Javier wrote: > > > > From: Jorge Sanjuan Garcia <jorge.sanjuangarcia@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Just a style change so that the device release callbacks are > > > > defined > > > > in the same way for devices in mcb_bus and mcb_device. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jorge Sanjuan Garcia > > > > <jorge.sanjuangarcia@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Co-developed-by: Jose Javier Rodriguez Barbarin > > > > <JoseJavier.Rodriguez@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jose Javier Rodriguez Barbarin > > > > <JoseJavier.Rodriguez@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mcb/mcb-core.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mcb/mcb-core.c b/drivers/mcb/mcb-core.c > > > > index 0cac5bead84f..5c6157b0db75 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/mcb/mcb-core.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/mcb/mcb-core.c > > > > @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ struct mcb_bus *mcb_alloc_bus(struct device > > > > *carrier) > > > > bus->dev.parent = carrier; > > > > bus->dev.bus = &mcb_bus_type; > > > > bus->dev.type = &mcb_carrier_device_type; > > > > - bus->dev.release = &mcb_free_bus; > > > > + bus->dev.release = mcb_free_bus; > > > > > > But you aren't fixing the root cause here of an incorrect pointer > > > being > > > passed to this function, right? > > > > > > Yes, removing the single variable is nicer, so the crash doesn't > > > happen, > > > but you are still passing the wrong pointer around, so why not > > > fix > > > that? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > The pointer to struct device in function __mcb_bus_add_devices() > > always > > was the correct one. The problem came when calling to function > > to_mcb_device() which was hapenning even for the case of struct > > device > > pointer being a member of struct mcb_bus. > > > > Removing the need for this conversion makes the function generic so > > that it will work for both mcb_device and mcb_bus structs. This > > already > > fixes the crash as no member overlapping will occur (is_added in > > mcb_device struct and bus_nr in mcb_bus struct). > > > > We belive the pointer is the correct one and this patch series was > > actually fixing the root cause of the crash. What do you mean by > > "passing the wrong pointer around"? are we missing something? > > Ok, I understand now, yes, this looks correct. > > But, the function mcb_bus_add_devices() seems odd to me. You are > passing in a parameter that you are never using, so why have it at > all? > You are implying that you only have one bus, yet you are ignoring the > bus sent to you? > > This still seems wrong. > > I'll queue up this series as it obviously fixes a bug, but more needs > to > be done here. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Thank you Greg, I will think about your suggestions and as soon as I have a new patch that fixes it, I will send it to you. Regards
