On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:57:35AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:52:26PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > But I didn't suggest calling error_detected from report_error_detected. > > > Just call it directly without device_lock. It's not very feasible to enforce a non- > > > blocking callback, though, if speed is really a concern here. > > Yeah, it would better to either always call a callback with or without the lock. > > In some flows with lock and in some flows without lock would likely be > > very bad as one cannot establish a sane locking order. > > On closer look, my suggestion without the device_lock may be racy, but > using the device_lock prevents the notification that needs to happen. > Hm, not as easy as I thought. :( I think I will just add a work_struct and a flag that the driver can set to schedule it on surprise removal then. Hmm? -- MST
