On 08/01/2020 16:01, James Bottomley wrote:
OK, let's try that. This should be the patch if someone can try itThat would make more sense than trying to "reuse" the deviceÂÂÂÂcdev->dev = NULL;The design of the code is simply to remove the link to the inserted
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return device_add(&cdev->cdev);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂ}
ÂÂÂÂreturn -ENODEV;
}
device which has been removed.
I*think*Â this means the calls to device_del and device_add are
unnecessary and should go. enclosure_remove_links and the put of
the
enclosed device should be sufficient.
structure
here by tearing it down and adding it back.
(I've compile tested it, but the enclosure system is under a heap of
stuff in the garage).
I can test it now.
But it is a bit suspicious that we had the device_del() and device_add() at all, especially since the code change makes it look a bit more like pre-43d8eb9cfd0 ("ses: add support for enclosure component hot removal")
John
James
---
diff --git a/drivers/misc/enclosure.c b/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
index 6d27ccfe0680..3c2d405bc79b 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/enclosure.c
@@ -406,10 +406,9 @@ int enclosure_remove_device(struct enclosure_device *edev, struct device *dev)
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ cdev = &edev->component[i];
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (cdev->dev == dev) {
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ enclosure_remove_links(cdev);
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ device_del(&cdev->cdev);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ put_device(dev);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ cdev->dev = NULL;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return device_add(&cdev->cdev);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return 0;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂÂ return -ENODEV;
_______________________________________________
Linuxarm mailing list
Linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx
http://hulk.huawei.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxarm
.