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;
Subject: Re: [ide] ec7d9c9ce8: WARNING:at_fs/proc/generic.c:#remove_proc_entry
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@01.org,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
References: <20181220091931.zcibvplow3oxzacs@inn2.lkp.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wjvxCn2uYp7USY5bbVuffJcugusxHc-RU7u5H1=ubMyPw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <bd9cad88-08c6-ee65-abef-eaa8a4540019@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 09:14:50 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjvxCn2uYp7USY5bbVuffJcugusxHc-RU7u5H1=ubMyPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/20/18 9:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:19 AM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
>>
>> commit: ec7d9c9ce897174243af4fcd201dbfc34df0f3a3 ("ide: replace ->proc_fops with ->proc_show")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> 
> Funky.  How did the kernel test robot suddenly figure out an 8-month
> old problem?
> 
>> [   44.180514] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 165 at fs/proc/generic.c:662 remove_proc_entry+0xb9/0x155
> 
> This is a warning for somebody doing "remove_proc_entry() on a name
> that doesn't actually exist in that /proc directory.
> 
> In this case, it does seem to be due to the named commit adding a
> 
> +               remove_proc_entry("settings", drive->proc);
> 
> to ide_proc_unregister_device(), and looking at the patch I get the
> feeling that it's due to a typo: the code *creates* the file called
> "setting", but removes the file "settings". Note the missing "s" at
> creation time.
> 
> And yes, the name of the /proc file _should_be "settings", judging by
> the rest of the patch.
> 
> So it does seem to be a real bug. Nobody noticed until now? Why did
> the test robot suddenly react to it?

Maybe the the tiny subset of IDE users don't actually have the proc
stuff enabled? A few months ago I did plenty of IDE testing with the
MQ conversion, but I never saw anything like this. I'm guessing that
I, too, did not have IDE_PROC_FS enabled.

Christoph, do you want to post the one-liner fix for this one?

-- 
Jens Axboe