From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753696Ab3KYKFW (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:05:22 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:44193 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753134Ab3KYKFR (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:05:17 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,766,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="414142396" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:11:54 +0200 From: Mika Westerberg To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: handle duplicate removal attempts in sysfs_remove_group() Message-ID: <20131125101154.GS2281@intel.com> References: <1384866598-19716-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20131123230701.GA6183@kroah.com> <2196420.QNWb3mfseF@vostro.rjw.lan> <3805095.rqdZNnA0Ng@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3805095.rqdZNnA0Ng@vostro.rjw.lan> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:09:09AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:36:03 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 03:07:01 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:12:59AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 23, 2013 02:53:58 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > I can revert Mika's patch, as it would be good to catch these kinds of > > > > > errors. > > > > > > > > Then we'll need to untangle the SATA/SCSI mess triggered by Bjorn in > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65281. ;-) > > > > > > I have no objection to fixing that, the scsi sysfs handling is "odd" to > > > say the least... > > > > > > If someone can unwind it, that would be great to see happen... > > > > Well, if I'm bored to death during the xmas holidays, I may look into that. > > In fact, I'm not exactly sure why ata_port_detach() calls ata_tport_delete() > before scsi_remove_host()? Is there any particular reason? Because that > doesn't seem to be exactly right ... I tried so that I have your 'PCI: Move device_del() from pci_stop_dev() to pci_destroy_dev()' applied and then I did following change as you suggested. diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index 81a94a3919db..07a03f93d640 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -6304,10 +6304,10 @@ static void ata_port_detach(struct ata_port *ap) for (i = 0; i < SATA_PMP_MAX_PORTS; i++) ata_tlink_delete(&ap->pmp_link[i]); } - ata_tport_delete(ap); - /* remove the associated SCSI host */ scsi_remove_host(ap->scsi_host); + + ata_tport_delete(ap); } /** After both patches are applied the warnings are gone :) However, looks like both are needed since if I only apply one or another, I still get warnings.