[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQXDSjzXPudWCG9fkDDO0ksncWcSQon5nhA2NLagidO1qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:31:35 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/22] ACPI: Separate acpi_bus_trim to support two steps.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 02:40:34 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Current all acpi_bus_trim callers have rmdevice to 1.
>> that means it will remove all acpi devices.
>>
>> When 0, is passed, it will keep the parent.
>>
>> For root bus hotremove support, we need to have pci device to be
>> removed before acpi devices.
>>
>> So try to keep all acpi devices, and only stop drivers with them.
>>
>> This change should be safe because all current callers all have 1 passed.
>
> I'm not sure how the chanelog is related to the patch itself.
>
> The patch modifies the behavior of acpi_bus_trim() to avoid removing all
> devices (not just the start point) for rmdevice==0, which doesn't really change
> the functionality, because all callers pass rmdevice=1 anyway.
>
> Yes, we can make this change, but why is it necessary?
>
> And why don't we remove the rmdevice argument from acpi_bus_trim() altogether?
this patch is not needed after your changes with acpi_bus_trim.
Yinghai
--
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