On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:21:15PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 31.03.2021, 09:08 +0200 schrieb Oliver Neukum: > > Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 17:22 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:44:32PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 16:38 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold: > > > > > @@ -1115,6 +1161,8 @@ static void usb_serial_disconnect(struct usb_interface *interface) > > > > > if (serial->type->disconnect) > > > > > serial->type->disconnect(serial); > > > > > > > > > > + release_sibling(serial, interface); > > > > > + > > > > > /* let the last holder of this object cause it to be cleaned up */ > > > > > usb_serial_put(serial); > > > > > dev_info(dev, "device disconnected\n"); > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > does this assume you are called for the original interface first? > > > > > > No, I handle either interface being unbound first (e.g. see > > > release_sibling()). > > > > > > > I am afraid that is an assumption you cannot make. In fact, if somebody > > > > is doing odd things with sysfs you cannot even assume both will see a > > > > disconnect() > > > > > > Right, but disconnect() will still be called also for the sibling > > > interface as part of release_sibling() above. > > > > OK, sorry I overlooked that. > > Hi, > > on the third hand, the more I look at this, would you mind putting > sibling_release() with a modified name into usbcore? This functionality > is not limited to serial drivers. btusb needs it; cdc-acm needs it; > usbaudio neds it. We have code duplication. Tell me about it. ;) Unfortunately, drivers all tend to handle this slightly different, for example, using a disconnected flag, some claim more than one other interface, others look like they may be using their interface data as a flag for other purposes, etc. At some point we could unify all this but until then I don't think putting only half of an interface into core makes much sense. Johan
