On Apr 22, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:01:28AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > On Apr 02, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:16:23PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > > > On 04/02/2014 06:05 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:46:51AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > > > > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c > > > > >> index 3372ded..e2fd263 100644 > > > > >> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c > > > > >> @@ -470,8 +470,9 @@ static int dsps_musb_exit(struct musb *musb) > > > > >> struct dsps_glue *glue = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent); > > > > >> > > > > >> del_timer_sync(&glue->timer); > > > > >> - > > > > >> usb_phy_shutdown(musb->xceiv); > > > > >> + debugfs_remove_recursive(glue->dbgfs_root); > > > > >> + > > > > >> return 0; > > > > >> } > > > > >> > > > > >> @@ -708,8 +709,6 @@ static int dsps_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > >> pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev); > > > > >> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > > > > >> > > > > >> - debugfs_remove_recursive(glue->dbgfs_root); > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is the right fix. debugfs_remove_recursive is > > > > > supposed to remove the directory as well. Why isn't dsps_musb_exit() > > > > > called ? > > > > > > > > dsps_musb_exit() is called, hence my fix works :) The question is rather > > > > why dsps_remove() isn't called. > > > > > > > > For me, the fix looked obvious, as resources that are claimed in > > > > dsps_musb_init() should obviously be freed in its counterpart function, > > > > dsps_musb_exit(). For reasons of readability if not for any other :) > > > > > > you're correct, for whatever reason I read it as moving the lines the > > > other way around (from _exit() to _remove()). > > > > > > I'll queue this once -rc1 is tagged. > > > > > > > Felipe: > > > > This fix didn't land on -rc2, and it's not even in -next. > > Am I missing something? Is it possible to queue this as urgently as > > possible? > > Grass hopper, please... :-) > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=139809466025568&w=2 > Oh, nice. Thanks for taking care of this! Is there any strong reason for the fixes branch not being part of -next? Or maybe you should push the patches to your next branch, instead? I found functionality breaks *very* frequently on early -rc, and it's usually quicker to take a peek at -next and see if somebody already fixed it. That way silly grass-hoppers like me won't have to go through the find-bisect-fix bug cycle, only to discover someone else already fixed it but the patch is floating around :-) -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
