linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/3] ps3: Disk Storage Driver

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:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:10:45 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...ion.unipv.it>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] ps3: Disk Storage Driver

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:57:53 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com> wrote:

> 	Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:15:40 +0200
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
> > > 
> > > Add a Disk Storage Driver for the PS3:
> > 
> > Your patchset significantly hits powerpc, scsi and block.  So who gets to
> > merge this?  Jens?  James?  Paul?
> > 
> > Me, I guess ;)
> 
> As Paul is on holidays, please take it.

OK.

> The PS3 storage driver core support is
> already in mainline, but the actual drivers aren't, as Paul was waiting for
> acks from the maintainers.
> 
> BTW, do you prefer incremental patches for the comments below, or an update of
> the full patchset?

Incremental is preferred, but I convert replacement patches into
incremental patches at about 10Hz nowadays.  Whatever's easier.

(Actually, if it's a replacement patch then only I get to see the
incremental patch, and the incremental patch is more reviewer-friendly).

> I didn't have much choice, as most of it was static and I don't need the full
> libata core anyway.
> 
> If I would factor it out, any good suggestion where to put the factored out
> code?

Take it up with Jeff, please.  If you're keen.  It isn't a lot of code.

> 
> > > +static int ps3disk_remove(struct ps3_system_bus_device *_dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct ps3_storage_device *dev = to_ps3_storage_device(&_dev->core);
> > > +	struct ps3disk_private *priv = ps3disk_priv(dev);
> > > +
> > > +	__clear_bit(priv->gendisk->first_minor / PS3DISK_MINORS,
> > > +		    &ps3disk_mask);
> > 
> > I see no locking here which makes this __clear_bit and the above __set_bit
> > non-racy?
> 
> Were .probe()/.remove() made concurrent again? I thought that idea was dropped
> because it caused too many problems?

I don't _think_ there's any global exclusion on ->probe calls.  For a
particular driver instance it's hard to see how these thigns can run
concurrently, dunno.  I guess two hotunplugs coud happen concurrently.


-
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/