On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Linus Torvalds >> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Also, my *gut* feel is that the new _handle_hotplug_event_root() >>> function should do that whole dance with >>> acpi_scan_lock_acquire()/acpi_scan_lock_release(), but I didn't really >>> know if it's required or appropriate, so I left it alone. Could you >>> take a look? >> >> Yes, we need that for root bridge hot add path. >> >> for hot remove path, we already have lock acquire/release in >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(). >> >> Please check attached patch for hot add path. > > Quite frankly, doing this in handle_root_bridge_insertion() doesn't > match the pattern elsewhere. Elsewhere you also protected the whole > acpi_get_name() lookup etc. Which is why I felt that it would make > more sense to add this to _handle_hotplug_event_root(). > > But there may be good reasons why the root bridge case is different, > and I don't have strong opinions, I just wanted people to look at his > case. I'll let you and Bjorn sort it out... ok, Bjorn, Rafael, Can you please check if you are ok with attached patch ? Thanks Yinghai
Attachment:
fix_acpi_pci_root_acquire_lock.patch
Description: Binary data
