From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932158Ab3KVQDA (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:63622 "EHLO mail-qa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753381Ab3KVQC7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:02:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:02:52 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Mika Westerberg , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "James E.J. Bottomley" Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: handle duplicate removal attempts in sysfs_remove_group() Message-ID: <20131122160252.GA8981@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1384866598-19716-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20131120061830.GA16081@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 08:43:55AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > So, we do have cases where the parent is removed before the child. I > > suppose the parent pci bridge is removed already? AFAICS this > > shouldn't break anything but people did seem to expect the removals to > > be ordered from child to parent. Bjorn, is this something you expect > > to happened? > > I do not expect a PCI bridge to be removed before the devices below > it. We should be removing all the children before removing the parent > bridge. > > But is this related to PCI? I don't see the connection yet. I tried I'm not sure. It was from thunderbolt and nobody is reporting it on other interconnects, so it could be. > to look into this a bit (my notes are at > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65281), but I haven't > figured out the big-picture problem yet. > > I don't have warm fuzzies that adding a "have we already removed this" > check is the best resolution, but maybe that's just because I don't > understand the problem. Yeah, the whole thing is sorta pointless. Just issuing removal and continuing on should do, IMHO. Thanks. -- tejun