Hi Bjorn, Sorry for late response. I've returned to Japan. It was nice to see you. On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:23:49 -0700 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'd like to merge hostbridge hotplug feature. > > I looked at Yinghai's branch and found that this branch contains > > many work and can be split into some parts. > > I believe it is good to merge step by step. > > > > My idea is splitting into the following 4 parts: > > 1. basic hostbirdge hotplug work > > 2. acpiphp work > > 3. /sysfs interface work (logical hotplug?) > > 4. cleanup > > > > This patchset is 1st step based on the following Yinghai's branch: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git > > for-pci-root-bus-hotplug > > > > * [PATCH 1/7][RESEND] x86, PCI: Fix non acpi path pci_sysdata leaking with release_fn > > * [PATCH 2/7][RESEND] PCI: Correctly clean up pci root buses in function pci_remove_bus() > > * [PATCH 3/7][RESEND] ACPI, PCI: Use normal list for struct acpi_pci_driver > > * [PATCH 4/7][RESEND] ACPI, PCI: Notify acpi_pci_drivers when hot-plugging PCI root bridges > > * [PATCH 5/7][RESEND] ACPI, PCI: Protect global lists in drivers/acpi/pci_root.c > > * [PATCH 6/7][RESEND] ACPI, PCI: add hostbridge removal function > > * [PATCH 7/7][RESEND] ACPI, PCI: add resoruce-assign code for devices under hot-added hostbridge > > I looked at merging these tonight. But I noticed there are still a > few unanswered questions I asked earlier. > > 1) For patch [1/7], I pointed out that there is currently no way to > remove a non-ACPI host bridge, which means the fact that we don't free > the pci_sysdata is not really a leak. If you want to add the > release_fn so that you can add support for removing and adding these > non-ACPI host bridges in the future, I do not understand that. It > just doesn't make sense to me to try to support hotplug for those > bridges. I see. I plan on ACPI-based host bridge hotplug, so I omit this patch now. > 2) For patch [2/7], I'm still curious about the scenario where this > patch makes a difference (see my previous response for details). I'll omit this patch too according to Jian's comment. > 3) Patch [5/7], adds mutual exclusion to two different lists, using > two different mechanisms (mutex and RCU). It would be easier for > people to review if this were done in two separate patches. > OK. I'll sprit into 2 patches. And I'll resend new version one soon. -- Best regards, Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
