On 17.04.2023 12:17, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 01:30:39AM +0000, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> Above I have proposed another view on this. I hope, it will work for >> you. Just to reiterate, idea is to allow "harmless" refcounts to be left >> after returning from pci_remove_device(). By "harmless" I mean that >> owners of those refcounts will not try to access the physical PCI >> device if pci_remove_device() is already finished. > > I'm not strictly a maintainer of this piece code, albeit I have an > opinion. I will like to also hear Jans opinion, since he is the > maintainer.
I'm afraid I can't really appreciate the term "harmless refcounts". Whoever holds a ref is entitled to access the device. As stated before, I see only two ways of getting things consistent: Either pci_remove_device() is invoked upon dropping of the last ref, or it checks that it is dropping the last one. The former looks architecturally cleaner to me, but I can accept that moving there might be more of a change, so wouldn't object to going the latter route. Jan
