[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389938353.7406.22.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:59:13 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Why does kexec use device_shutdown rather than ubind them
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 20:52 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I think we have largely survied until now because kdump is so popular
> and kdump winds up having to reinitialize devices from any random
> state.
kdump also doesn't care too much if the device is still DMA'ing to the
old kernel memory :-)
> But like I said I am all for reducing the burden on device driver
> developers.
Right. I'm experimenting with a variant of device_shutdown() that tries
remove() first and if it doesn't exist and shutdown() does, call that
(is that ever the case ?). I'm keeping this kexec-specific for now.
I'll try to hammer that on some of our machines see if it breaks
anything, I think it's a much better approach for kexec.
As for actual machine shutdown, we *might* have some corner cases where
shutdown is actually different from remove for good reasons, so that
will have to be investigated a bit more in depth.
I'll post my results when I have them.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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