> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
> Nitka, Grzegorz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:10 AM
> To: Kubalewski, Arkadiusz <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Cc: Vecera, Ivan <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kitszel,
> Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v14 net-next 04/13] dpll: send delete
> notification before unregister in on-pin rollback
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kubalewski, Arkadiusz <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:45 PM
> > To: Nitka, Grzegorz <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Oros,
> Petr
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected];
> > Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Vecera,
> > Ivan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v14 net-next 04/13] dpll: send delete notification
> before
> > unregister in on-pin rollback
> >
> > >From: Nitka, Grzegorz <[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 8:31 PM
> > >
> > >The rollback path in dpll_pin_on_pin_register() called
> > >__dpll_pin_unregister() before dpll_pin_delete_ntf(). When the
> > >unregister dropped the pin's last DPLL reference it cleared the
> > >DPLL_REGISTERED mark in dpll_pin_xa, so the subsequent
> > >dpll_pin_event_send() failed dpll_pin_available() and aborted with
> > >-ENODEV. As a result userspace was never notified of the rollback
> > >deletion and remained out of sync with the kernel.
> > >
> > >Send the delete notification first, matching the order used by
> > >dpll_pin_unregister() and dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister().
> > >
> > >Fixes: 9d71b54b65b1 ("dpll: netlink: Add DPLL framework base functions")
> > >Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nitka <[email protected]>
> > >---
> > > drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
> > >index cea7e2be2cbc..80195f3a84f3 100644
> > >--- a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
> > >+++ b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
> > >@@ -1007,9 +1007,9 @@ int dpll_pin_on_pin_register(struct dpll_pin
> > >*parent, struct dpll_pin *pin,
> > > dpll_unregister:
> > > xa_for_each(&parent->dpll_refs, i, ref)
> > > if (i < stop) {
> > >+ dpll_pin_delete_ntf(pin);
> > > __dpll_pin_unregister(ref->dpll, pin, ops, priv,
> > > parent);
> > >- dpll_pin_delete_ntf(pin);
> >
> > Hey Grzegorz,
> >
> > Since patch 7/13 this is already part of __dpll_pin_unregister ?
> > The call should be removed at all? Please make sure all calls to
> > __dpll_pin_unregister(..) are aware of that, also maybe better to
> > put this all related to one patch?
> >
>
> Yes, I think this patch is a good candidate to squash with 7/13 (with
> proper commit message edit).
> Same 'Fixes' tag and both touch notifications fix.
>
> Thanks
>
> Grzegorz
Hi Arek,
I revisited your comment, from the perspective of redundant calls
to dpll_pin_delete_ntf after patch 7/13 is applied to.
Yes, there are still 2 "redundant" calls to dpll_pin_delete_ntf on top of
__dpll_pin_unregister.
I'm going to send v14 with this fix and reordered commits in the patchset (7/13
moved up).
Regards
Grzegorz
> > > }
> > > dpll_xa_ref_pin_del(&pin->parent_refs, parent, ops, priv, pin);
> > > unlock:
> > >--
> > >2.39.3
