Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: overlay: Synchronize of_overlay_remove() with the devlink removals

[Nuno Sá]

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 11:14 +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:50:21 +0100
> Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 09:39 +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > In the following sequence:
> > >   1) of_platform_depopulate()
> > >   2) of_overlay_remove()
> > > 
> > > During the step 1, devices are destroyed and devlinks are removed.
> > > During the step 2, OF nodes are destroyed but
> > > __of_changeset_entry_destroy() can raise warnings related to missing
> > > of_node_put():
> > >   ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2 ...
> > > 
> > > Indeed, during the devlink removals performed at step 1, the removal
> > > itself releasing the device (and the attached of_node) is done by a job
> > > queued in a workqueue and so, it is done asynchronously with respect to
> > > function calls.
> > > When the warning is present, of_node_put() will be called but wrongly
> > > too late from the workqueue job.
> > > 
> > > In order to be sure that any ongoing devlink removals are done before
> > > the of_node destruction, synchronize the of_overlay_remove() with the
> > > devlink removals.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 80dd33cf72d1 ("drivers: base: Fix device link removal")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/of/overlay.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> > > index 2ae7e9d24a64..99659ae9fb28 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c  
> > 
> > In the cover, you mention device.h inclusion but I'm not seeing it? This is
> > clearly up to the DT maintainers to decide but, IMHO, I would very much
> > prefer
> > to see fwnode.h included in here rather than directly device.h (so yeah,
> > renaming the function to fwnode_*). But yeah, I might be biased by own
> > series :)
> > 
> 
> Damned. I missed device.h in this patch.
> Without this one, the patch do not compile :(
> 
> A fixup commit I missed to squash before sending.
> 
> A v3 is planned to add this device.h.
> 
> Nuno, do you prefer I wait few days before sending this v3 waiting for more
> replies
> or I send it right now and you re-do your comment on the v3 ?
> 
> I would really prefer to send it now :)
> 

Typically maintainers don't like much of re-spinning versions too fast. That
said, up to you :). I can copy paste my comments in v3.

- Nuno Sá