linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/23] PCI: add pci bus removal through /sys/.../pci

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]

Message-ID: <20120308154525.GB5907@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 07:45:25 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] PCI: add pci bus removal through
 /sys/.../pci_bus/.../remove

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:45:18PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about removing a "bus" and leaving
> >> the upstream bridge (either a host bridge or a P2P bridge).  I think
> >> it'd make more sense to remove the bridge itself, which would of
> >> course have the consequence of removing the secondary bus.
> >
> > for root bus, that remove pci_host_bridge and pci root bus.
> >
> > for pci bus under pci bridge, will remove that pci bus, but will still
> > keep  that pci bridge.
> > that should be ok. just like some pci bridge is there, and later can
> > not create child bus for it.
> >
> > there is one case: during test busn_alloc, i need to remove all device
> > on one bus, and
> > use setpci to change bridge bus number register. then use rescan
> > bridge to create new bus.
> >
> > with this one, I just need to remove that bus, instead of remove
> > children devices one by one.
> 
> I don't think making it convenient for manual testing is an argument
> for this interface.  For sysfs interfaces it is more important to make
> something that fits well into the grand plan of how things Should
> Work.  If you need internal helper functions for convenience, I'm OK
> with that, because it's easier to change those than to change sysfs
> interfaces.

If it's "only" for testing, then put it in debugfs, not sysfs.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/