On Monday, April 13, 2015 04:27:16 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年04月11日 07:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > acpi_scan_is_offline() may be called under the physical_node_lock
> > of the given device object's parent, so prevent lockdep from
> > complaining about that by annotating that instance with
> > SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.
>
> I think this is trigged by setting acpi_force_hot_remove to 1,
> in acpi_scan_hot_remove():
>
> if (device->handler && device->handler->hotplug.demand_offline
> && !acpi_force_hot_remove) {
> if (!acpi_scan_is_offline(device, true))
> return -EBUSY;
> } else {
> int error = acpi_scan_try_to_offline(device);
> if (error)
> return error;
> }
>
> then the container device will be removed by acpi_scan_try_to_offline(),
> let's wait for Xiuqi's test result.
I'm not sure what you mean. demand_offline is 'true' for containers, so
acpi_force_hot_remove doesn't matter here.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
