[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d1m2hg5i.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:36:57 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joel Stanley <joel.stanley@....ibm.com>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@....ibm.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: kexec: device shutdown vs. remove
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
> On Sat, 2016-07-23 at 22:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> I suspect that using (or depending on) the remove function may not be feasible
>> anymore after the recent effort by Paul Gortmaker to make drivers explicitly
>> non-modular if they are only configurable as boolean. In many cases, this
>> involved dropping remove functions.
>
> A lot of drivers we care about are modular. But maybe the right
> approach is to do something like remove() if it exist and shutdown() if
> it doesn't ? Or a new callback for kexec ? quiesce() ?
Perhaps remove if shutdown does not exist. What this really takes is
someone to care enough to sort through this mess.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists