On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:14:29 AM Yinghai Lu wrote: > 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 ? The patch looks correct to me. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
