On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I've objected to this before on the grounds that it's not safe to >> update res->end because res is already linked into the resource tree, >> but I just noticed another problem. >> >> Tree updates are protected by resource_lock, but we don't hold that >> here. I'm sure you "know" that this update can't race with any other >> conflicting resource operations, but its safety certainly is not >> obvious from the patch. >> >> I think a better implementation would be to add something like >> "resource_extend()" that could live in kernel/resource.c so it could >> do the appropriate locking and checking. Such an interface could also >> be independent of the resource type, which may be useful when doing >> mem/io resource reassignment. > > Thanks for point it out. > > Let me thinking about it. > >> >> This patch is already in Jesse's linux-next branch (commit >> c901d4c0407), so I'm leaving it up to you and Jesse to figure out >> what, if anything, to do about this. > > No, this patch is one in busn_alloc patchset. Jesse did NOT pick that > patchset yet. Ah, right you are. I guess I still had your for-pci-root-bus-hotplug branch checked out when this occurred to me. Sorry for the confusion. 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
