Re: ordering of call to unbind() in usbnet_disconnect

[Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 08:14:36PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 07:42:34PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > [cc += Heiner Kallweit, Andrew Lunn]
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:38:20PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:25:08PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > I got bug reports that 2c9d6c2b871d ("usbnet: run unbind() before
> > > > unregister_netdev()")
> > > > is causing regressions.
> > 
> > I would like to see this reverted as well.  For obvious reasons,
> > the order in usbnet_disconnect() should be the inverse of
> > usbnet_probe().  Since 2c9d6c2b871d, that's no longer the case.
> > 
> > 
> > > > Rather than simply reverting it,
> > > > it seems to me that the call needs to be split. One in the old place
> > > > and one in the place you moved it to.
> > 
> > I disagree.  The commit message claims that the change is necessary
> > because phy_disconnect() fails if called with phydev->attached_dev == NULL.
> 
> The only place i see which sets phydev->attached_dev is
> phy_attach_direct(). So if phydev->attached_dev is NULL, the PHY has
> not been attached, and hence there is no need to call
> phy_disconnect().

phydev->attached_dev is not NULL. It was linked to unregistered/freed
netdev. This is why my patch changing the order to call phy_disconnect()
first and then unregister_netdev().

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |