On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 12:54:58PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 7/23/26 5:52 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > rproc_del() is subjected to the reference counted shutdown path, as such > > a remoteproc with more than one reference will be left running as its > > resources are released underneath it. > > > > Refactor the shutdown path such that the reference count value is > > ignored when called from rproc_del(). > > > > Assisted-by: OpenCode:GPT-5.5 > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]> > > --- > > [...] > > > +static int __rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc, bool force) > > { > > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > > bool crashed; > > @@ -2029,9 +2008,10 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) > > } > > crashed = rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED; > > > > - /* if the remote proc is still needed, bail out */ > > - if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&rproc->power)) > > + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&rproc->power) && !force) { > > + /* The remote processor is still needed by another user. */ > > goto out; > > + } > > GPT makes some unclear suggestions, effectively saying that rproc_shutdown(), > unlike other paths, seems not to first check whether the rproc is deleting > if the shutdown isn't forced. I think it's a valid concern.
Is it not indirectly the same thing: `rproc_del()` -> `__rproc_shutdown()`, meaning `->deleting` is already set? Or are you saying it is better to call `__rproc_shutdown(rproc, rproc->deleting)`? -- -Mukesh Ojha
