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 RFC 2/2] scsi: ufshcd: Fix device links when BOOT WLUN
 fails to probe
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "open list:TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>, Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210707172948.1025-1-adrian.hunter@intel.com>
 <20210707172948.1025-3-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <YOXm4FuL/CW4lYDZ@kroah.com>
 <66130101-b0c5-a9a3-318a-468c6f3b380f@intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hfEE=ney1tH5MtQm0KWs4U2yzy_DqAAW7hTyxxx2-cNg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki,
 Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki
Message-ID: <c3ec3ca2-220f-9e5a-e2ce-b1c2be86c97c@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 17:17:13 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hfEE=ney1tH5MtQm0KWs4U2yzy_DqAAW7hTyxxx2-cNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/07/21 3:31 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:49 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/07/21 8:39 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 08:29:48PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> If a LUN fails to probe (e.g. absent BOOT WLUN), the device will not have
>>>> been registered but can still have a device link holding a reference to the
>>>> device. The unwanted device link will prevent runtime suspend indefinitely,
>>>> and cause some warnings if the supplier is ever deleted (e.g. by unbinding
>>>> the UFS host controller). Fix by explicitly deleting the device link when
>>>> SCSI destroys the SCSI device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> index 708b3b62fc4d..483aa74fe2c8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> @@ -5029,6 +5029,13 @@ static void ufshcd_slave_destroy(struct scsi_device *sdev)
>>>>              spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>>>              hba->sdev_ufs_device = NULL;
>>>>              spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>>> +    } else {
>>>> +            /*
>>>> +             * If a LUN fails to probe (e.g. absent BOOT WLUN), the device
>>>> +             * will not have been registered but can still have a device
>>>> +             * link holding a reference to the device.
>>>> +             */
>>>> +            device_links_scrap(&sdev->sdev_gendev);
>>>
>>> What created that link?  And why did it do that before probe happened
>>> successfully?
>>
>> The same driver created the link.
>>
>> The documentation seems to say it is allowed to, if it is the consumer.
>> From Documentation/driver-api/device_link.rst
>>
>>   Usage
>>   =====
>>
>>   The earliest point in time when device links can be added is after
>>   :c:func:`device_add()` has been called for the supplier and
>>   :c:func:`device_initialize()` has been called for the consumer.
> 
> Yes, this is allowed, but if you've added device links to a device
> object that is not going to be registered after all, you are
> responsible for doing the cleanup.
> 
> Why can't you call device_link_del() directly on those links?
> 
> Or device_link_remove() if you don't want to deal with link pointers?
> 

Those only work for DL_FLAG_STATELESS device links, but we use only
DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME | DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE flags.