On 2/23/19 12:50 AM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 07:56:28PM +0000, Alex_Gagniuc@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 2/21/19 1:36 AM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 07:20:28PM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>> mutex_lock(&ctrl->state_lock);
>>>> + present = pciehp_card_present(ctrl);
>>>> + link_active = pciehp_check_link_active(ctrl);
>>>> switch (ctrl->state) {
>>>
>>> These two assignments appear to be superfluous as you're also performing
>>> them in pciehp_check_link_active().
>>
>> Not sure. Between the first check, and this check, you can have several
>> seconds elapse depending on whether the driver's .probe()/remove() is
>> invoked. Whatever you got at the beginning would be stale. If you had a
>> picture dictionary and looked up 'bad idea', it would have a picture of
>> the above code with the second check removed.
>
> I don't quite follow. You're no longer using the "present" and
> "link_active" variables in pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change(),
> the variables are set again further down in the function and you're
> *also* reading PDS and DLLLA in is_delayed_presence_up_event().
> So the above-quoted assignments are superfluous. Am I missing something?
>
> (Sorry, I had copy-pasted the wrong function name, I meant
> is_delayed_presence_up_event() above, not pciehp_check_link_active().
I see what I did. You're right. I should remove the following lines from
the patch. I'll have that fixed when I re-submit this.
+ present = pciehp_card_present(ctrl);
+ link_active = pciehp_check_link_active(ctrl);
>
>> I've got all the other review comments addressed in my local branch. I'm
>> waiting on Lord Helgass' decision on which solution is better.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Can we keep this discussion in a neutral tone please?
I'm sorry. I thought comparing linux to feudalism would be hillarious,
but I now see not everyone agrees. Sorry, Bjorn.
Alex
