On 8/15/13, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Alex Williamson
<snip>
> I don't think this is hotplug-safe. It looks like pci_bus_sem might
> be the right semaphore to hold while verifying that we won't reset any
> unintended devices.
Something like pci_bus_sem locks all the buses, which may pose a big
overhead. So it doesn't seem like an ideal solution. A better approach
is to lock only one parent to protect only a sub-tree. At least that's
what I've seen in some other operating systems dealing with PCI
hotplug. But that requires a significant amount of change.
Thanks
Rui
But I think most users of the bus->devices list
> are unprotected, so there's no point in trying to fix just this one.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static int __pci_dev_reset(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
>> {
>> int rc;
>> @@ -3278,6 +3308,10 @@ static int __pci_dev_reset(struct pci_dev *dev, int
>> probe)
>> if (rc != -ENOTTY)
>> goto done;
>>
>> + rc = pci_dev_reset_slot_function(dev, probe);
>> + if (rc != -ENOTTY)
>> + goto done;
>> +
>> rc = pci_parent_bus_reset(dev, probe);
>> done:
>> return rc;
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
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
