>>> I'm not sure why you didn't add a pci_host_bridge_hotplug_lock() in >>> the sba_init() path, since it looks similar to the drm_open_helper() >>> path above. But in any case, I think that would be the wrong thing to >>> do because it would fix the superficial problem while leaving the >>> deeper problem of host bridge hot-add not setting the iommu pointer. > >> sba_init is called during system initialization stages through subsys_initcall, >> so no extra protection for it. > > OK, I see your reasoning. But I don't agree :) All the users of an > interface should use the same locking scheme, even if they're at > boot-time where we "know" we don't need it. It's too hard to analyze > differences, and code gets copied from one place to somewhere else > where it might not be appropriate. Hi Bjorn, "All the users of an interface should use the same locking scheme", a really good design pattern to follow. It's so easy for everybody to remove the __init modifier without noticing the design limitation. --Gerry -- 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
