Hi Kenji-san, * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Alex-san, Jesse-san, > >> Note how we're checking get_slot_from_name. That should prevent >> your scenario (b) that you describe above. >> >> Maybe the diff was confusing, but I am definitely not removing >> your code. I'm simply adding on top of a86161b3134465f, and not >> removing it. >> > > I have to apologize. I was using v14 unintentionally on my test > environment yesterday, while I thought I was using v15. > > I think v15 will prevent senario (b), though I have not tried it > yet. I'll check it again. You can check either v15, which applies to Stephen Rothwell's linux-next, or you can check v16, which applies to Jesse's linux-next. The only difference is in patch 1/3, where we are touching fakephp, which is not the patch that is confusing us here. :) > And I agree that Alex-san's patch go to Jesse-san's linux-next. > If I found something after that, I'll report it or send a > incremental patch. To tell the truth, I have several patches > that are waiting for Alex-san's patch to be merged to linux-next:) Yeah, I think incremental patches from here out are good. >>> I made a below patch to prevent (b), please take a look. And could you >>> please consider merging it to "[PATCH 2/3] Introduce pci_slot" in your >>> latest series. >> >> Ok, now this is very confusing to me. Why is this patch so >> different from a86161b3134465f? >> >> Are you saying the call to get_slot_from_name() is no longer >> sufficient? >> > > Though I might misunderstand something about your patch, I thought > get_slot_from_name() approach would break what your patch is trying > to do. > > My understanding about your patch is as follows: > > (x) If multiple hotplug drivers try to register the same slot (try > to handle the same slot, in other words), pci_hp_register() > returns -EBUSY. > > (y) If one or more drivers try to assign the same name to multiple > slots, pci_hp_register() returns -EEXIST. That was the original intent, but I think that returning -EEXIST for (x) should be sufficient. If it turns out we really do want -EBUSY for (x), we can add your latest fixup patch later. > I thought senario (x) will return -EEXIST instead of -EBUSY if we > use get_slot_from_name() approach. So I made a different patch. > > In addition, regardless of whether my understanding is correct or not, > I noticed my patch I sent yesterday might be not good, because I made > it under the misunderstanding that I thought pci_hp_register() is called > even by ACPI pci slot driver... Yes, it is confusing. - PCI hotplug drivers call pci_hp_register() - pci_hp_register() calls pci_slot_create() - ACPI pci slot driver calls pci_slot_create() So the get_slot_from_name() approach will not break the ACPI pci slot driver, and it will continue to fix the broken platforms you are dealing with. > Anyway, I'll look at your patch again after having several cups of coffee. :) Thanks, /ac -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
