archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <>
To: "Michal Suchánek" <>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Peter Huewe <>,
	Marcel Selhorst <>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not disable driver and bus shutdown hook when class shutdown hook is set.
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:30:57 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > The bus disables the driver callback, on the expectation that the bus
> > implementation will do it.
> Which is totally sound design not prone to errors.

Well, I agree it isn't the easiest...

> > Existing bus implementations do properly chain to driver shutdown (eg
> > look at mmc_bus_shutdown) and it appears to have been written like
> Neither isa nor ibmebus does. These are two random buses I tried to
> look at.

I'm not following, I see this:

static void ibmebus_bus_device_shutdown(struct device *dev)
        struct platform_device *of_dev = to_platform_device(dev);
        struct platform_driver *drv = to_platform_driver(dev->driver);

        if (dev->driver && drv->shutdown)

It looks to me like in this case the struct device_driver shutdown is
not used, and instead the struct platform_driver shutdown is called.

> > this so that the bus can insert code before and after calling the
> > driver shutdown.
> So basically there is bus pre-shutdown and post-shutdown hook jumbled
> together in one function.

and a redirect, apparently.

> While I can understand the concept of post-shutdown hook I wonder
> what gross hack would require a pre-shutdown hook.

TPM requires pre-shutdown. It fences off access to the TPM so the TPM
can have a clean shutdown. We cannot do a clean TPM shutdown if there
is a possibility of another transaction being send to the TPM. TPM's
have non-volatile state and record if they were not shut down
properly, so doing this is actually quite important.

> The Linux development process at its best. There is poor design
> implemented so when touching the code it is extended to worse because

I'm not sure I completely agree, there is obviously a lot going on with

If you want to go ahead with your patch then please also rename the
class shutdown to shutdown_pre to make it clear it is doing something

> it is smaller patch more likely to get past maintainers than fixing the
> mess.

Yes, this is probably true, the TPM fix needed to be back ported to -stable.


  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-10 16:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-09 21:34 Michal Suchanek
2017-08-09 21:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-08-10 10:18   ` Michal Suchánek
2017-08-10 16:30     ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2017-08-11  5:04       ` Michal Suchánek
2017-08-11 15:28         ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2017-08-11 17:01           ` Michal Suchánek
2017-08-11 11:50   ` Jarkko Sakkinen

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] Do not disable driver and bus shutdown hook when class shutdown hook is set.' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).