linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Replace struct acpi_bus

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:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:46:55 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Replace struct acpi_bus_ops with enum type

On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > Notice that one member of struct acpi_bus_ops, acpi_op_add, is not
> > used anywhere any more and the relationship between its remaining
> > members, acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start, is such that it doesn't
> > make sense to set the latter without setting the former at the same
> > time.  Therefore, replace struct acpi_bus_ops with new a enum type,
> > enum acpi_bus_add_type, with three values, ACPI_BUS_ADD_BASIC,
> > ACPI_BUS_ADD_MATCH, ACPI_BUS_ADD_START, corresponding to
> > both acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start unset, acpi_op_match set and
> > acpi_op_start unset, and both acpi_op_match and acpi_op_start set,
> > respectively.
> >
> 
> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just
> acpi_device?
> 
> aka we should let struct device has this add_type field.

Having done that in ACPI to cover our use case here, we can try to move it
into struct device if there are use cases beyond ACPI that can't be covered
by using deferred driver probing.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/