[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253757903.15763.80.camel@rzhang-dt>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:05:03 +0800
From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Cory T. Tusar" <ctusar@...eon-central.com>,
"Trisal, Kalhan" <kalhan.trisal@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: introduce ACPI ALS device driver
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 16:11 +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> Are there any plausible race conditions associated with doing the allocation this way?
> >
> > well, theoretically, yes.
> > simultaneous add calls may happen in hotplug case, but I don't think an
> > ACPI ALS device supports hotplug.
> That would make that point irrelevant!
>
> Thinking further on this. What happens on a box that for some reason repeatedly inserts and
> removes this module?
>
I don't see a problem in this case.
> This is the sort of problem idr's are meant to overcome. They will cost you a bit
> in terms of complexity though.
>
If we use generic names, say als0, als1, ..., it's worth using idr in
the ALS class driver.
But here, als_id is just used to fix the duplicate device name problem,
in a native ALS driver. IMO, it's overkill to implement the idr stuff.
thanks,
rui
--
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