Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

[<dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 03:08:22AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > The latter already have robust schemes to help the driver shutdown and
> > > end the concurrent operations. ie cancel_work_sync(),
> > > del_timer_sync(), free_irq(), and *notifier_unregister().
> > 
> > One a side note, devm_request_irq() is another of the devm_* helpers
> > that cause race conditions, as interrupt handlers can run right after
> > .remove() returns, which drivers will most likely not handle correctly.
> 
> Yes! You *cannot* intermix devm and non-devm approaches without
> creating very subtle bugs exactly like this. If your subsystem does
> not provide a "devm register" helper its drivers shouldn't use devm.

I wonder if we should have a proactive debug mode that checks for
idiomatic devres usage and flags:

- registering devres actions while the driver is detached
- registering devres actions for a device with a driver that has a
  .remove() method
- passing a devres allocation to a kobject API
- invoking devres release actions from a kobject release API