linux-kernel - Re: [Update][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / dock / PCI: Synchronous handling of dock events for PCI devices

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 23 Jun 2013 21:34:09 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"Alexander E . Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / dock / PCI: Synchronous handling of
 dock events for PCI devices

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 04:04:52 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
...
>> > Ah, I overlooked the fact that each dock station is on its own dependent_list
>> > and can also be on another dock station's dependent_list.  I'm not sure if that
>> > makes sense, but let's not break the backwards compatibility here.
>>
>> wonder if dock_release_hotplug with second dock_station and dd will
>> have problem.
>>
>> as first one dock_station/dd, could have hp_context release already,
>> then second one could all release(context) again....
>>
>> so looks like dock_release_hotplug should go over dock_station/dd list
>> to clear hp_context in other dock_station/... if they are the same?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.  They are different dependent_device objects
> and each of them has its own context pointer, although they both will point to
> the same thing.
>
> Both "init" and "release" will be called for each of them individually which
> for for acpiphp (which is the only user of that ATM) actually means "get" and
> "put", so it should be OK.

yes, then hp_context can never be  the same, just the acpi handle is the same.

Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>

BTW, thank you very much for the whole acpi scan rework.

Yinghai
--
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/