On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:46:50PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:18:19PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:03:32PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I applied this to for-linus with the following changelog. Let me know > > > if I didn't understand this correctly. I changed the comment in > > > pciehp_power_on_slot() so it doesn't say "sticky" to avoid confusion > > > with the PCI spec concept of sticky register bits (ROS, RWS, RW1CS). > > > > Perfect! Thanks for queueing this up. I'll drop this one from the rest > > of the series, which will need at least a v3 to fix a dumb mistake in > > pointed out in review, and I'll get the order to better sense (or maybe > > split into independent patch sets). > > Are you still planning a v3? I really want to get this in for v4.20 > and I think there's probably some integration to be done with Lukas' > series (which I haven't applied yet either). > > I rebased my branches to v4.19-rc4 to avoid a merge conflict Lukas > pointed out. I'll send something out today, and I think I'll split it into multiple independent sets. I had to trim down what this is trying to accomplish due to existing deadlocking bugs I've found in testing: there are several circular dependencies on tasks holding the single pci_rescan_remove_lock. I don't think I'll be able to fix that in time for 4.20, but I'll send the parts that I believe are an improvement that don't break anything else.
