linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare

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:	Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:31:08 -0700
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Cc:	Vasilis Liaskovitis <vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Liujiang <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, Huxinwei <huxinwei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device
 operation

On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 20:10 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2012/12/5 7:23, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 17:16 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/4 8:10, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 12:25 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>> On 2012/11/30 6:27, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I read the code right, the framework calls ACPI drivers differently
> >>> at boot-time and hot-add as follows.  That is, the new entry points are
> >>> called at hot-add only, but .add() is called at both cases.  This
> >>> requires .add() to work differently.
> >>
> >> Hi Toshi,
> >> Thanks for your comments!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Boot    : .add()
> >>
> >> Actually, at boot time: .add(), .start()
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> >>> Hot-Add : .add(), .pre_configure(), configure(), etc.
> >>
> >> Yes, we did it as you said in the framework. We use .pre_configure(), configure(),
> >> and post_configure() to instead of .start() for better error handling and recovery.
> > 
> > I think we should have hot-plug interfaces at the module level, not at
> > the ACPI-internal level.  In this way, the interfaces can be
> > platform-neutral and allow any modules to register, which makes it more
> > consistent with the boot-up sequence.  It can also allow ordering of the
> > sequence among the registered modules.  Right now, we initiate all
> > procedures from ACPI during hot-plug, which I think is inflexible and
> > steps into other module's role.
> > 
> > I am also concerned about the slot handling, which is the core piece of
> > the infrastructure and only allows hot-plug operations on ACPI objects
> > where slot objects are previously created by checking _EJ0.  The
> > infrastructure should allow hot-plug operations on any objects, and it
> > should not be dependent on the slot design.
> > 
> > I have some rough idea, and it may be easier to review / explain if I
> > make some code changes.  So, let me prototype it, and send it you all if
> > that works out.  Hopefully, it won't take too long.
> 
> Great! If any thing I can do, please let me know it.

Cool.  Yes, if the prototype turns out to be a good one, we can work
together to improve it. :)
 
Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/