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
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>
 <20200605075459.GB2209311@kroah.com>
From:   Jordan Hand <jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <d8552b13-dbbb-7e4b-9e56-3264435d9225@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:20:06 -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: <20200605075459.GB2209311@kroah.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 6/5/20 12:54 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Right now, the way the driver model and sysfs/kobjects work is that all
> objects must be removed in child-first order.  The problem of your
> change where you want to try to remove the devices in parent-first order
> is that you do not really know if you still have a reference to a child
> device somewhere else, which would prevent this all from happening
> correctly, right?
> 
> So if you "know" it is safe to drop a child, that's great, and expected.
> Don't work to make  this one tiny user of the kobjects (which I'm still
> not quite sure why they are kobjects and not devices), do things in a
> different way from the rest of the kernel without a strong reason to do
> so.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

I see, thanks for taking the time to explain, the reason for the 
existing behavior is more clear to me now. I agree it is better to have 
the caller remove the nodes in the correct order rather than having the 
swnode infrastructure try to have some special behavior.

Thanks,
Jordan