From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn•ch>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner•de>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix•de>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse•com>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat•de>,
"netdev@vger•kernel.org" <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: ordering of call to unbind() in usbnet_disconnect
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 20:14:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yi+UHF37rb0URSwb@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220314184234.GA556@wunner.de>
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().
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-14 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-10 11:25 ordering of call to unbind() in usbnet_disconnect Oliver Neukum
2022-03-10 11:38 ` Oleksij Rempel
2022-03-14 18:42 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-14 19:14 ` Andrew Lunn [this message]
2022-03-15 5:44 ` Oleksij Rempel
2022-03-15 8:32 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-15 11:38 ` Oleksij Rempel
2022-03-15 13:28 ` Andrew Lunn
2022-03-17 15:53 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-03-17 21:03 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-21 10:17 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-21 10:43 ` Oleksij Rempel
2022-03-31 9:35 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-03-21 10:02 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-21 13:10 ` Andrew Lunn
2022-03-26 12:39 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-26 12:49 ` Andrew Lunn
2022-03-26 13:04 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-27 8:37 ` Oleksij Rempel
2022-03-31 9:20 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-03-31 9:30 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-31 9:59 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-03-31 11:22 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-26 12:25 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-03-26 12:44 ` Andrew Lunn
2022-03-26 13:01 ` Lukas Wunner
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=Yi+UHF37rb0URSwb@lunn.ch \
--to=andrew@lunn$(echo .)ch \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux@rempel-privat$(echo .)de \
--cc=lukas@wunner$(echo .)de \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix$(echo .)de \
--cc=oneukum@suse$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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