[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR03MB266914DE916753C042A8A7B0BFF10@MWHPR03MB2669.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:45:07 +0000
From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"Haiyang Zhang" <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] pci-hyperv: properly handle device eject
> From: Long Li
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:41
>
> I think this code is safe here. If we reach the code
> pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked, create_root_hv_pci_bus() is already
> called.
When hv_pci_probe() -> create_root_hv_pci_bus() -> pci_scan_child_bus() is running
on one cpu, I think nothing in the current code can prevent
hv_eject_device_work() -> pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked()
from running on another cpu?
The race window is pretty small however.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists