On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 09:53 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > So I hate using kobject_get_unless_zero(), and resisted ever adding it > > > to the tree as it shows a bad locking/tree situation as you point out > > > here. But for some reason, the block developers seemed to insist they > > > needed it, and so it is in the tree for them. I don't want it to spread > > > if at all possible, which makes me want to reject this patch as this > > > should be "a case that can never be hit". > > > > Except it can in that situation... at least unless you get my patch 2/2 > > (or the newer one I'm about to send that avoids adding a child counter > > and uses the one in kernfs instead). > > To follow up on this. I've applied the 2/2 patch for this series, so > this 1/2 "should" not be needed. Ben, if you still see this trigger > with that, I guess I can take this, but it still feels wrong to me :)
I've tested my repro-case with only patch 2 and it doesn't trigger anymore, as expected. That said, you and Linus might want to sync your clocks on how sysfs "should" work :-) Cheers, Ben.