On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:23:53AM +0530, Somnath Kotur wrote:
> Hi Leon,
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:27:31AM +0530, Somnath Kotur wrote:
> >> Clean up all devices added to the bnxt_re_dev_list in the
> >> module_exit entry point.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/main.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/main.c
> >> index 82d1cbc..00a3b74 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/main.c
> >> @@ -1375,6 +1375,22 @@ static int __init bnxt_re_mod_init(void)
> >>
> >>  static void __exit bnxt_re_mod_exit(void)
> >>  {
> >> +     struct bnxt_re_dev *rdev;
> >> +     LIST_HEAD(to_be_deleted);
> >> +
> >> +     mutex_lock(&bnxt_re_dev_lock);
> >> +     /* Free all adapter allocated resources */
> >> +     if (!list_empty(&bnxt_re_dev_list))
> >
> > Hi Somnath,
> >
> > How is it possible to have the bnxt_re_dev_list to be empty at this
> > stage? Doesn't the call to bnxt_re_mod_exit mean that at least one entry
> > exists?
> Well, there is a possibility that NETDEV_UNREGISTER got invoked (not
> via rmmod , but via the pci-sysfs route)
> and this list is empty by the time rmmod of the bnxt_re was invoked.

I was under impression that calls to bnxt_re_ib_unreg() and bnxt_re_remove_one()
in NETDEV_UNREGISTER should eliminate such scenario.

Thanks

>
> Thanks
> Som