From: yajun.deng@linux.dev
To: "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"PCI" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] PCI: Fix the order in unregister path
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 02:41:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4186a73958319066f76c8a7e2e833b2a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKNOFhfs3=xpsLZRTaNKEnGPTKU58mDJU7AfuAwMdLrmw@mail.gmail.com>
August 30, 2021 10:55 PM, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:39 PM <yajun.deng@linux.dev> wrote:
>
>> August 26, 2021 8:01 PM, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:57 PM <yajun.deng@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> August 25, 2021 9:55 PM, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 3:34 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> device_del() should be called first and then called put_device() in
>> unregister path, becase if that the final reference count, the device
>> will be cleaned up via device_release() above. So use device_unregister()
>> instead.
>>
>> Fixes: 9885440b16b8 (PCI: Fix pci_host_bridge struct device release/free handling)
>> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/probe.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> NAK.
>>
>> The current code is correct. Go read the comments for device_add/device_del.
>>
>> But the device_unregister() is only contains device_del() and put_device(). It just put
>> device_del() before put_device().
>>
>> And that is the wrong order as we want to undo what the code above
>> did. The put_device here is for the get_device we did. The put_device
>> in device_unregister is for the get_device that device_register did
>> (on success only).
>>
>> Logically, it is wrong too to call unregister if register failed. That
>> would be like doing this:
>
> You are right that the register and unregister are different devices.
> However, your change is still wrong. The device_register is actually
> irrelevant.
>
OK, the original order is right, it was my mistake.
>> p = malloc(1);
>> if (!p)
>> free(p);
>>
>> This is the raw code:
>> err = device_register(&bus->dev);
>> if (err)
>> goto unregister;
>> unregister:
>> put_device(&bridge->dev);
>> device_del(&bridge->dev);
>
> The pertinent parts are this:
>
> err = device_add(&bridge->dev); // which calls get_device() itself,
> so there's the first ref
> if (err) {
> put_device(&bridge->dev);
> goto free;
> }
> bus->bridge = get_device(&bridge->dev); // This is the 2nd ref which
> the PCI core holds
> ...
> unregister:
> put_device(&bridge->dev); // This is the put for the get_device
> just above here.
> device_del(&bridge->dev); // Then this does the 2nd put.
>
> The get_device and put_device are paired, and the device_add and
> device_del are paired.
>
> As I said earlier, go read the kerneldoc for device_add. For your
> convenience, here's the important part:
>
> device_add:
> * Rule of thumb is: if device_add() succeeds, you should call
> * device_del() when you want to get rid of it. If device_add() has
> * *not* succeeded, use *only* put_device() to drop the reference
> * count.
>
> device_del:
> * NOTE: this should be called manually _iff_ device_add() was
> * also called manually.
>
> Rob
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-31 2:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-25 8:34 [PATCH linux-next] PCI: Fix the order in unregister path Yajun Deng
2021-08-25 13:55 ` Rob Herring
2021-08-26 3:57 ` yajun.deng
2021-08-26 12:01 ` Rob Herring
2021-08-27 2:39 ` yajun.deng
2021-08-30 14:55 ` Rob Herring
2021-08-31 2:41 ` yajun.deng [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4186a73958319066f76c8a7e2e833b2a@linux.dev \
--to=yajun.deng@linux.dev \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).