From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_legacy: Allow disabling of legacy PATA device
 probes on non-PCI systems
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:34:42 +0000
Message-ID: <20170103173442.00a514cc@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
References: <20161202170705.GB6033@htj.duckdns.org>
        <CAP8WD_bUW9cAAQpvenL73sxvpoxNYwZdRqpj92YWEyanK51+0g@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161205192310.GA30331@mtj.duckdns.org>
        <CAP8WD_becq+h2=-g7t-6Pp1psmkCCvdB0YUcg+wYPocUP4dYdw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161212170154.GA13864@htj.duckdns.org>
        <CAP8WD_YMtnsuYmJHGz1eLmrQNemsB1Z6Soyb6f72brAfMNUNeg@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAP8WD_ZoJgrdsDZNR4uN8HWESO5MyuNc1xN_F2an8GfP8nKcLA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161222163711.GB29161@htj.duckdns.org>
        <CAP8WD_ay1uKc0JLPr8MWQKT2N=rdqeH+hKkOCVMt76NcmK4hAA@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAP8WD_agt=peX28+d_oTXhEOd_9ogMScO7h8xd1hTTsHzWz_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161222192256.GE31216@htj.duckdns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:40192 "EHLO
        lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1760057AbdACRfy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:35:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20161222192256.GE31216@htj.duckdns.org>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: whiteheadm@acm.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:22:56 -0500
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:30:23PM -0500, tedheadster wrote:
> > > I think this driver should either not be considered 'platform' or it
> > > should make a call to free_irq() on failures.
> > >  
> > 
> > The question is: who is responsible to free an irq from a device
> > registered using platform_device_register_simple()? Is it the driver
> > or the platform code?  
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.  There's a rudimentary garbage collector devm
> which tracks all the resources associated with a device.  The previous
> patch that I sent you which created an explict resource group and
> released it uses the same mechanism.  When any device gets destroyed,
> it should release all associated resources and I was wondering why
> that wasn't happening without the explicit group operations.  I'll
> write up a debug patch to track down what's going on. 

Almost certainly libata leaking a reference to the device so it doesn't
think it's gone away.

Alan