On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 05:39:27 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 00:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In theory, an ACPI device object may be the parent of another
> > device object whose hotplug is disabled by user space through its
> > scan handler. In that case, the eject operation targeting the
> > parent should fail as though the parent's own hotplug was disabled,
> > but currently this is not the case, because acpi_scan_hot_remove()
> > doesn't check the disable/enable hotplug status of the children
> > of the top-most object passed to it.
> >
> > To fix this, modify acpi_bus_offline_companions() to return an
> > error code if hotplug is disabled for the given device object.
> > [Also change the name of the function to acpi_bus_offline(),
> > because it is not only about companions any more, and change
> > the name of acpi_bus_online_companions() accordingly.] Make
> > acpi_scan_hot_remove() propagate that error to its callers.
> >
> :
> > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_online(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl, void *data,
> > + void **ret_p)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> > struct acpi_device_physical_node *pn;
> > @@ -214,26 +220,32 @@ static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct a
> > * If the first pass is successful, the second one isn't needed, though.
> > */
> > errdev = NULL;
> > - acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > - NULL, acpi_bus_offline_companions,
> > - (void *)false, (void **)&errdev);
> > - acpi_bus_offline_companions(handle, 0, (void *)false, (void **)&errdev);
> > + status = acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + NULL, acpi_bus_offline, (void *)false,
> > + (void **)&errdev);
> > + if (status == AE_SUPPORT) {
> > + dev_warn(errdev, "Offline disabled.\n");
> > + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + acpi_bus_online, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > + put_device(&device->dev);
> > + return -EPERM;
> > + }
> > + acpi_bus_offline(handle, 0, (void *)false, (void **)&errdev);
> > if (errdev) {
>
> If the target object failed with AE_SUPPORT, shouldn't we skip the 2nd
> pass and return with -EPERM after rollback?
We've checked the target object already in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() or in
acpi_eject_store().
Which is telling me that the previous version of the patch was better after
all, because the hotplug.enabled thing takes precedence over
acpi_force_hot_remove in the other places. So this:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3135841/
is the right version. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
