From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752431Ab3KYK2v (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:28:51 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:65006 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750855Ab3KYK2s (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:28:48 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: handle duplicate removal attempts in sysfs_remove_group() Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: <14914400.in2y5Td8qp@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.12.0-rc6+; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20131125101154.GS2281@intel.com> References: <1384866598-19716-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <3805095.rqdZNnA0Ng@vostro.rjw.lan> <20131125101154.GS2281@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, November 25, 2013 12:11:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:09:09AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:36:03 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 03:07:01 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:12:59AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 02:53:58 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can revert Mika's patch, as it would be good to catch these kinds of > > > > > > errors. > > > > > > > > > > Then we'll need to untangle the SATA/SCSI mess triggered by Bjorn in > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65281. ;-) > > > > > > > > I have no objection to fixing that, the scsi sysfs handling is "odd" to > > > > say the least... > > > > > > > > If someone can unwind it, that would be great to see happen... > > > > > > Well, if I'm bored to death during the xmas holidays, I may look into that. > > > > In fact, I'm not exactly sure why ata_port_detach() calls ata_tport_delete() > > before scsi_remove_host()? Is there any particular reason? Because that > > doesn't seem to be exactly right ... > > I tried so that I have your 'PCI: Move device_del() from pci_stop_dev() to > pci_destroy_dev()' applied and then I did following change as you > suggested. > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > index 81a94a3919db..07a03f93d640 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c > @@ -6304,10 +6304,10 @@ static void ata_port_detach(struct ata_port *ap) > for (i = 0; i < SATA_PMP_MAX_PORTS; i++) > ata_tlink_delete(&ap->pmp_link[i]); > } > - ata_tport_delete(ap); > - > /* remove the associated SCSI host */ > scsi_remove_host(ap->scsi_host); > + > + ata_tport_delete(ap); > } > > /** > > After both patches are applied the warnings are gone :) However, looks like > both are needed since if I only apply one or another, I still get warnings. Yes, they are both needed. :-) OK, I'll submit the above upstream if you don't mind. Cheers, R.