linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Replace struct acpi_bus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:48:52 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Replace struct acpi_bus_ops with enum type

On Monday, December 10, 2012 03:22:48 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
> >> >> acpi_device?
> >> >>
> >> >> aka we should let struct device has this add_type field.
> >> >
> >> > Having done that in ACPI to cover our use case here, we can try to move it
> >> > into struct device if there are use cases beyond ACPI that can't be covered
> >> > by using deferred driver probing.
> >>
> >> pci device for hotplug have same problem. need to delay driver attach
> >> for them too.
> >
> > OK, I'll take a look.  Any pointers to speed that up?
> >
> >> also BUS_ADD_MATCH and BUS_ADD_START are duplicated.
> >
> > Not at the moment, they do different things as code goes.
> 
> I do think that is same problem which is in the driver/base core.
> 
> it should support delay loading driver for the hotplug case at the first point.
> that is reason that .start is introduced for acpi driver..to workround
> the problem
> in driver core.

OK, but let's eliminate .start() first and then go make changes to the
driver core.  That is, let's take one step at a time. :-)

> >> old add are separated to adding all devices to tree and then matching
> >> work to load the drivers.
> >>
> >> so _START is not needed anymore, only user.start in pci_root driver
> >> should be removed.
> >> code in .start could be moved .add without problem.
> >
> > Yes, I'm going to do that as the next step.  I didn't want this particular
> 
> after you remove that .start, that will the same as my two patches.
> except that you patches toggle that per-device add_type for every device.
> 
> and my patches is only toggle that per device drivers_autoprobe for
> hot-add devices.

I'm not 100% sure of that, but quite likely that's the case.  I'd like to avoid
special-casing hotplug in any way, if possible.  Also, I have other reasons to
do it for all devices (like the resources management for one example).

> > patchset to grow too big.  I'll post another one on top of it if people
> > don't have problems with this one.
> 
> yesterday, I replace my two acpi driver delay loading patches with your patches.
> 
> during pci root bus hot remove/add test, got the panic...

I don't see what the reason may be at the moment, it would be good to get more
info (like a screenshot of the panic).

> did not have time to look at it yet.

OK

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/