linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI / hotplug: Merge device hot-removal routines

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:	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:26:18 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI / hotplug: Merge device hot-removal routines

On Monday, November 04, 2013 01:21:46 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> The only substantial difference between acpi_bus_device_eject() and
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() is the get_device() done by the former
> which is supposed to be done by callers of the latter.  However,
> at least one caller of acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(), which is
> handle_root_bridge_removal(), doesn't do that and generally it
> won't be necessary to do that at all if ACPI handles, rather than
> struct acpi_device objects, are passed between ACPI hotplug routines,
> because the correctness of those routines already depends on the
> persistence of ACPI handles (that may not be an entirely correct
> assumption in theory, but in practice it has been good enough for a
> long time).
> 
> For this reason, modify acpi_bus_device_eject() to take two
> arguments, an ACPI handle and event code, and make
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() call it internally.  Moreover, rework
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() so that it only takes one argument,
> an ACPI handle, and make acpi_scan_bus_device_check() queue up
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() instead of acpi_bus_device_eject()
> itself.  After these changes, handle_root_bridge_removal() may
> be replaced with async execution of acpi_bus_hot_remove_device()
> with the ACPI handle of the root passed to it as the argument.
> 
> However, since acpi_eject_store() also needs to execute
> acpi_bus_device_eject() asynchronously and it needs to pass a
> special event code, ACPI_OST_EC_OSPM_EJECT, to that function,
> introduce a separate wrapper around acpi_bus_device_eject(),
> acpi_eject_store_work(), that will be queued up by
> acpi_eject_store() instead of acpi_bus_hot_remove_device().
> This allows acpi_eject_store() to be simplified and it allows
> struct acpi_eject_event to be dropped entirely, as there's
> no more users of that structure.

Well, scratch this (and the follow-up), it didn't go in the right direction.

I'll send a new series shortly.

Rafael

--
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/