Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:29:51 +0900 | From | Kenji Kaneshige <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4, v14] PCI, ACPI: Physical PCI slot objects |
| |
Alex-san,
Alex Chiang wrote: > Hi Kenji-san, > > * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>: >> Alex-san, Jesse-san, >> >>> Note how we're checking get_slot_from_name. That should prevent >>> your scenario (b) that you describe above. >>> >>> Maybe the diff was confusing, but I am definitely not removing >>> your code. I'm simply adding on top of a86161b3134465f, and not >>> removing it. >>> >> I have to apologize. I was using v14 unintentionally on my test >> environment yesterday, while I thought I was using v15. >> >> I think v15 will prevent senario (b), though I have not tried it >> yet. I'll check it again. > > You can check either v15, which applies to Stephen Rothwell's > linux-next, or you can check v16, which applies to Jesse's > linux-next. > > The only difference is in patch 1/3, where we are touching > fakephp, which is not the patch that is confusing us here. :) > >> And I agree that Alex-san's patch go to Jesse-san's linux-next. >> If I found something after that, I'll report it or send a >> incremental patch. To tell the truth, I have several patches >> that are waiting for Alex-san's patch to be merged to linux-next:) > > Yeah, I think incremental patches from here out are good. > >>>> I made a below patch to prevent (b), please take a look. And could you >>>> please consider merging it to "[PATCH 2/3] Introduce pci_slot" in your >>>> latest series. >>> Ok, now this is very confusing to me. Why is this patch so >>> different from a86161b3134465f? >>> >>> Are you saying the call to get_slot_from_name() is no longer >>> sufficient? >>> >> Though I might misunderstand something about your patch, I thought >> get_slot_from_name() approach would break what your patch is trying >> to do. >> >> My understanding about your patch is as follows: >> >> (x) If multiple hotplug drivers try to register the same slot (try >> to handle the same slot, in other words), pci_hp_register() >> returns -EBUSY. >> >> (y) If one or more drivers try to assign the same name to multiple >> slots, pci_hp_register() returns -EEXIST. > > That was the original intent, but I think that returning -EEXIST > for (x) should be sufficient. If it turns out we really do want > -EBUSY for (x), we can add your latest fixup patch later. >
Ok, I understood. Thank you for clarification. I also think your latest patch is sufficient.
Just in case, I would like to tell you the fact that (x) has following two cases, though I think you already recognized about it.
(x-1) If multiple hotplug drivers try to handle the same slot with different names, pci_hp_register() returns -EBUSY.
(x-2) If multiple hotplug drivers try to handle the same slot with the same name, pci_hp_register() returns -EEXIST.
Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige
| |