* Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx>:
> On Tuesday 21 July 2009 01:57:55 pm Alex Chiang wrote:
> > * Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx>:
> > > On Tuesday 14 July 2009 02:53:33 pm Alex Chiang wrote:
> > > > +static struct pci_bus *pci_bus_from_handle(acpi_handle handle)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pci_bus *pbus;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (acpi_is_root_bridge(handle)) {
> > > > + struct acpi_pci_root *root = acpi_pci_find_root(handle);
> > > > + pbus = root->bus;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = acpi_get_pci_dev(handle);
> > > > + pbus = pdev->subordinate;
> > > > + pci_dev_put(pdev);
> > > > + }
> > > > + return pbus;
> > >
> > > I worry that acpi_is_root_bridge() merely checks the device IDs of
> > > "handle", which isn't quite the same as checking whether the pci_root
> > > driver has claimed "handle".
> >
> > Hm, I understand this concern in a theoretical sense, but could
> > you explain more of what you're thinking about, and give me a
> > concrete example of something that might go wrong here?
>
> My concern is only theoretical -- I could imagine a PNP0A03 device
> in the namespace (so acpi_is_root_bridge() is true) that has not been
> claimed by the pci_root driver (so acpi_pci_find_root() returns NULL).
>
> I don't think this will happen in practice because pci_root can't be
> a module, but it's easier to analyze with just one check, since you
> can learn everything you need from acpi_pci_find_root() without also
> depending on acpi_is_root_bridge().
Ah, that makes sense.
I can respin one more time using your suggestion (although I'll
probably keep it factored out into a separate function).
Thanks.
/ac
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
