From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAA9C43387 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B5521841 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730465AbfAJRhe (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:37:34 -0500 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:36697 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729905AbfAJRhe (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:37:34 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2019 09:37:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,462,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="266148086" Received: from ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com ([10.7.198.76]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2019 09:37:32 -0800 Message-ID: <0a72b8db91f9151ecc7f215b465ec8e69adc239c.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v9 1/9] driver core: Establish order of operations for device_add and device_del via bitflag From: Alexander Duyck To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Linux PM , Lai Jiangshan , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , zwisler@kernel.org, Dan Williams , dave.jiang@intel.com, bvanassche@acm.org Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:37:32 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181220152844.GA27498@kroah.com> References: <154466182249.9126.3905559325944768059.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <154466189880.9126.10737761541647369077.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <20181220152844.GA27498@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 16:28 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Alexander Duyck > > wrote: > > > > > > Add an additional bit flag to the device struct named "dead". > > > > > > This additional flag provides a guarantee that when a device_del is > > > executed on a given interface an async worker will not attempt to attach > > > the driver following the earlier device_del call. Previously this > > > guarantee was not present and could result in the device_del call > > > attempting to remove a driver from an interface only to have the async > > > worker attempt to probe the driver later when it finally completes the > > > asynchronous probe call. > > > > > > One additional change added was that I pulled the check for dev->driver > > > out of the __device_attach_driver call and instead placed it in the > > > __device_attach_async_helper call. This was motivated by the fact that the > > > only other caller of this, __device_attach, had already taken the > > > device_lock() and checked for dev->driver. Instead of testing for this > > > twice in this path it makes more sense to just consolidate the dev->dead > > > and dev->driver checks together into one set of checks. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck > > > > Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > It's too late for 4.21-rc1 as my tree should be closed by now. > > So I'll hold on to these in my queue until 4.21-rc1 is out and then > queue them up and see what breaks in linux-next :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h I just wanted to check on on this patch set in terms of workflow. Since it looks like we now have 5.0-rc1 out I was wondering what the ETA for this patch set being pulled was, or if I need to resubmit the set. Thanks. - Alex