On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I think it would be better to remove the bus resource from the tree, >>>> change its "end," then re-insert it. >>> >>> how about parent buses that have extended top? >> >> I don't understand your question. I assume you mean there's a case >> where remove/update/reinsert doesn't work, but I don't see why that >> would be a problem. Can you show an example? > > I mean parent busn_res already had several level's children busn_res. > and every level may have some siblings. > before remove will need to record those resources, to later to put them back. > > that just increase not necessary complexity. because we already know > those resource could be extended safely. You're doing surgery on the middle of a relatively complicated data structure. Now readers of the code have to trust that not only does kernel/resource.c work correctly, but they also have to examine this PCI code to make sure that these alterations are safe. I know this is all crystal-clear in your mind, and no doubt it is correct right now, but I don't think it is a reader-friendly approach. But I don't expect to convince you, so I'll stop trying :) Bjorn -- 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
