Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] software node: recursively unregister child swnodes
From:   Jordan Hand <jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200604193623.16946-1-jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20200604201523.GA1308830@kroah.com>
 <c6150824-60d3-11ad-ba1a-e75d6a7a916e@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <4f3020b9-b693-c8cc-ec3e-8df96da45f33@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:28:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c6150824-60d3-11ad-ba1a-e75d6a7a916e@linux.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 6/4/20 1:57 PM, Jordan Hand wrote:
> On 6/4/20 1:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:36:23PM -0700, jorhand@linux.microsoft.com 
> 
> That said, I suppose just ordering the nodes so that children come 
> before parents would also be fine. My thinking was just that accepting 
> any node ordering is simpler.
> 

Oh, actually I just tried that out and software_node_register_nodes 
doesn't allow this (parents must be added before children).

So I still think software_node_register_nodes and 
software_node_unregister_nodes are made more useful if children are 
removed recursively. I'll make some changes for v2 to make the change 
less far-reaching + better documentation.

Thanks,
Jordan