Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:45:12 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Wenchao Hao <haowenchao@huawei.com>, fmdefrancesco@gmail.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, jejb@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        syzbot+f08c77040fa163a75a46@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linfeilong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: sd: call device_del() if device_add_disk() fails
Message-ID: <YkU/6KB+0fPU5Hie@infradead.org>
References: <20220329154948.10350-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
 <20220331152622.616534-1-haowenchao@huawei.com>
 <20220331054156.GI3293@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220331054156.GI3293@kadam>
Precedence: bulk

> The temptation was to call device_unregister() which is a combined
> device_del(); device_put(); but when the device_initialize() and
> device_add() are called separately, then I think it is more readable to
> call del and put separately as well.

I think we should also consolidate the initialization side.  Using
device_register and device_unregister would have prevented this bug
and I should have switched to that before refactoring the code.