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, 25 Mar 2019 14:20:52 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kwankhede@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] vfio/mdev: Follow correct remove sequence
Message-ID: <20190325142052.423badda@x1.home>
In-Reply-To: <1553296835-37522-7-git-send-email-parav@mellanox.com>
References: <1553296835-37522-1-git-send-email-parav@mellanox.com>
        <1553296835-37522-7-git-send-email-parav@mellanox.com>
Organization: Red Hat
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:20:33 -0500
Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com> wrote:

> mdev_remove_sysfs_files() should follow exact mirror sequence of a
> create, similar to what is followed in error unwinding path of
> mdev_create_sysfs_files().
> 
> Fixes: 7b96953bc640 ("vfio: Mediated device Core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> index ce5dd21..c782fa9 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ int  mdev_create_sysfs_files(struct device *dev, struct mdev_type *type)
>  
>  void mdev_remove_sysfs_files(struct device *dev, struct mdev_type *type)
>  {
> +	sysfs_remove_files(&dev->kobj, mdev_device_attrs);
>  	sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "mdev_type");
>  	sysfs_remove_link(type->devices_kobj, dev_name(dev));
> -	sysfs_remove_files(&dev->kobj, mdev_device_attrs);
>  }

Ok, I agree this is good practice, but what qualifies a "Fixes:" tag
here?  The fixes reference is incorrect in any case, 6a62c1dfb5c7
changed the creation ordering and didn't update the remove ordering to
match, but I still don't see an actual problem with the remove ordering
that necessitates the tag.  Please clarify.  Thanks,

Alex