On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:33:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +void device_links_unbind_consumers(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device_link *link;
> + int idx;
> +
> + start:
> + idx = device_links_read_lock();
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links_to_consumers, s_node) {
> + enum device_link_status status;
> +
> + if (link->flags & DEVICE_LINK_STATELESS)
> + continue;
> +
> + spin_lock(&link->lock);
> + status = link->status;
> + if (status == DEVICE_LINK_CONSUMER_PROBE) {
> + spin_unlock(&link->lock);
> +
> + device_links_read_unlock(idx);
> +
> + wait_for_device_probe();
> + goto start;
> + }
While revisiting this function it just occurred to me that there's
a theoretical infinite loop here if the consumer probes, is unbound
by the supplier, then reprobes again before the supplier had a chance
to update the link to DEVICE_LINK_SUPPLIER_UNBIND. Perhaps this isn't
a problem in practice, but noting anyway.
The problem is that the link state is written to both by the supplier
and consumer. If there was a separate bit in struct device_link to
indicate the supplier's desire to unbind, the problem would go away.
However a mix of such a bit plus the state machine would become
somewhat confusing...
Best regards,
Lukas
