Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on vacation. On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:07:30 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > Allow host controllers to store private data per device. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > include/linux/libata.h | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > Index: libata-dev/include/linux/libata.h > > =================================================================== > > --- libata-dev.orig/include/linux/libata.h 2007-09-24 16:13:33.000000000 -0700 > > +++ libata-dev/include/linux/libata.h 2007-09-24 16:15:24.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -474,6 +474,9 @@ struct ata_device { > > /* error history */ > > struct ata_ering ering; > > int spdn_cnt; > > + > > + /* controller driver per device private data */ > > + void *private_data; > > I don't have any objections to this per se... a lot of other subsystems > do this too, and I can certainly see a potential need. > > But what about object lifetimes? If a controller is hot-unplugged, does > anyone need notification to destroy dynamic objects, or does controller > cleanup take care of that? If a device is unplugged, where should a > controller driver do its ->private_data cleanup? > > This is /not/ a NAK, just a request to make clear the lifetime rules and > procedures... > > Jeff > I'll do this - and meanwhile go ahead and ignore this patch. I've decided to submit it as part of a series where I actually use the private data, so we can review it in context. Thanks, Kristen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html