Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:48:04 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        ramalingam.c@intel.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: use a worker for sysfs unbind
Message-ID: <20181217194804.GJ21184@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mail-Followup-To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, ramalingam.c@intel.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
References: <20181210084653.7268-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <CAJZ5v0jkE=Rt2ozwcTxRdUN++Sr4HXULksDeMx4jEWj1jVDcyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181213095814.GC21184@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <CAJZ5v0iWshem3kuurF53gutVJ8jFm_caAbetK2CiSCpyc6ReeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uF7noCEgwE0QYZWQFx-OPxipAF1MojUZ8KTo_SXfQW8+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0g+-R8tbbJscL-3s23UPhyNX1v1Lj3aC=QdUBzdSCrspw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uHACB5-ak0b_BT-HoAmXHZ9EaCNTt7WuqckNWKQM-g2fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hOiL1oWGCmFv2N8-0UvCibXz02DhdFMyUQsQZ1hDjV=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hOiL1oWGCmFv2N8-0UvCibXz02DhdFMyUQsQZ1hDjV=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:09:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > > > I can do the old code exactly, but afaict the non-NULL parent just
> > > > takes care of the parent bus locking for us, instead of hand-rolling
> > > > it in the caller. But if I missed something, I can easily undo that
> > > > part.
> > >
> > > It is different if device links are present, but I'm not worried about
> > > that case honestly. :-)
> >
> > What would change with device links? We have some cleanup plans to
> > remove our usage for early/late s/r hooks with a device link, to make
> > sure i915 resumes before snd_hda_intel. Digging more into the code I
> > only see the temporary dropping of the parent's device_lock, but I
> > have no idea what that even implies ...
> 
> That's just it (which is why I said I was not worried).
> 
> Running device_links_unbind_consumers() with the parent lock held may
> deadlock if another child of the same parent also is a consumer of the
> current device (which really is a corner case), but the current code
> has this problem - it goes away with your change.
> 
> But dev->bus->need_parent_lock checks are missing in there AFAICS, let
> me cut a patch to fix that.

With your patch before this one, are you ok with mine? Or want me to
respin with a different flavour?

btw threading somehow broke apart, Chris Wilson r-b stamped this one on
intel-gfx:

https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/267220/

Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch