On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> + /*
> + * pci_stop_bus_device(dev) will not remove dev from bus->devices list,
> + * so We don't need use _safe version for_each here.
> + * Also _safe version has problem when pci_stop_bus_device() for PF try
> + * to remove VFs.
> + */
> + for (l = head->next; l != head;) {
That's crazy. Why would you open-code this? Why isn't it just a
"list_for_each()"?
And what are the problems with the safe version? If the safe version
doesn't work, then something is *seriously* wrong with the list.
> + struct pci_dev *dev = pci_dev_b(l);
> +
> + /*
> + * VFs are removed by pci_remove_bus_device() in the
> + * pci_stop_bus_devices() code path for PF.
> + * aka, bus->devices get updated in the process.
> + * barrier() will make sure we get right next from that list.
> + */
> + if (!dev->is_virtfn) {
> + pci_stop_bus_device(dev);
> + barrier();
> + }
And this is just insanity. The "barrier()" cannot *possibly* do
anything sane. If it really makes a difference, there is again some
serious problem with the whole f*cking thing.
NAK on the patch until sanity is restored. This is just total voodoo
programming.
Linus
--
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
