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;
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:45:05 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] driver core: Use rwsem for kill_device()
 serialization
Message-ID: <20200731064505.GH1508201@kroah.com>
References: <cover.1594214103.git.lukas@wunner.de>
 <bf185285172a7b127424ac22fa42811eb2081cd4.1594214103.git.lukas@wunner.de>
 <20200730065326.GA3950394@kroah.com>
 <20200730095610.orkum2n6snb42uzs@wunner.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200730095610.orkum2n6snb42uzs@wunner.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:56:10AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:53:26AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 03:27:02PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > kill_device() is currently serialized with driver probing by way of the
> > > device_lock().  We're about to serialize it with device_add() as well
> > > to prevent addition of children below a device which is going away.
> > 
> > Why?  Who does this?  Shouldn't the bus that is trying to do this know
> > this is happening?
> 
> AFAICS, at least spi and i2c are affected.
> 
> I first thought that pci is affected as well but it seems the global
> pci_lock_rescan_remove() performs the required serialization.
> 
> I've yet to take a closer look at acpi and usb.  Any bus which
> creates a device hierarchy with dynamic addition & removal needs
> to make sure no new children are added after removal of the parent
> has begun.
> 
> 
> > So, why are you pushing this down into the driver core, can't this be
> > done in whatever crazy bus wants to do this, like is done here?
> 
> I guess it can.  Let me try to perform the locking at the bus level then.

I thought the bus code itself had this type of serialization already...