On Monday, November 09, 2015 10:25:10 AM Dan Williams wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Saturday, November 07, 2015 10:57:17 AM Dan Williams wrote: > >>> Rafael, awaiting your ack... > >> > >> Well, this seems to be entirely NFIT-related. > >> > >> Is there anything in particular you want me to look at? > >> > > > > This might be more relevant for a follow-on patch, but I wonder if the > > core should be guaranteeing that the ->notify() callback occurs under > > device_lock(). In the case of NFIT it seems possible for the notify > > event to race ->add() or ->remove(), but maybe I missed some other > > guarantee? > > ...and no worries if you don't see anything worth commenting on, the > bulk of this is indeed NFIT specific. I actually don't see anything objectionable in it, although admittedly I've just had a cursorly look at it. 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
