[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090326155609.56a662cf@gondolin>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:56:09 +0100
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>, <greg@...ah.com>,
<kay.sievers@...y.org>, <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sysfs: allow suicide
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:21:23 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> The idea is that this would come in useful both for suicidal sysfs
> attributes and for hot-unplug events detected by an interrupt handler.
Yes; the ccw bus uses it's own workqueue, so it doesn't need
device_schedule_callback() to commit suicide. I guess other busses
could do the same.
>
> But there's something I'm not clear on. If hot-unplug events are
> detected by an interrupt handler, then what about hot-plug events?
> Wouldn't they be detected by the same interrupt handler? Obviously you
> can't register new devices in interrupt context, so there must be a
> workqueue or kernel thread involved somewhere. Shouldn't the two types
> of events be managed by the same workqueue/thread?
They should, you want to serialize plug/unplug. You'll even want to use
the same queue for plug/unplug not detected in interrupt context.
The next question is how granular those workqueues should be. Per
subsystem? Per bus? Something else?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists