Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757601AbcCXOvl (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:51:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:34144 "EHLO mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757777AbcCXOvY (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:51:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:51:21 +0000 From: Wei Yang To: Alex Williamson Cc: Wei Yang , treding@nvidia.com, joro@8bytes.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch V2 2/2] iommu: remove sysfs_link to device in iommu_group/devices when failed Message-ID: <20160324145121.GA30863@vultr.guest> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1458771911-30785-1-git-send-email-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <1458771911-30785-3-git-send-email-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20160323170415.65ecf521@t450s.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160323170415.65ecf521@t450s.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 43 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:04:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:25:11 +0000 >Wei Yang wrote: > >> The original code forgets to remove the sysfs_link to a device in >> iommu_group/devices directory, when the creation fails or conflicts on the >> name. >> >> This patch tries to remove the sysfs_link on the failure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang >> --- >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> index 2696a38..8f480ba 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> @@ -403,6 +403,7 @@ rename: >> ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(group->devices_kobj, >> &dev->kobj, device->name); >> if (ret) { >> + sysfs_remove_link(group->devices_kobj, device->name); >> kfree(device->name); >> if (ret == -EEXIST && i >= 0) { >> /* > >If we failed to create a link, potentially due to a conflicting link >already present, then aren't we arbitrarily removing that conflicting >link with this change? If sysfs_create_link_nowarn() fails then we >haven't created a link of our own to remove. This looks wrong. Thanks, > Hmm... you are right, that's my bad. Do you have comments on the first patch? >Alex -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me