Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:01:53 +0900 | From | Kenji Kaneshige <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] PCI: let the core manage slot names |
| |
Alex Chiang wrote: > * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>: >> Hi Alex-san, >> >> I have some ideas and made some patches for comments I sent about >> your [PATCH v4 02/15] and [PATCH v4 03/15]. Please take a look. >> There are three patches. > > Hi Kenji-san, > > Thanks for doing this work. > > I tested your patches, but found a problem with refcounting in > your 02/03, and the slot directories in sysfs remained, even > after rmmod of all drivers. > > I decided that things are getting too complicated with all these > new interfaces, so I got rid of them and updated the > pci_create_slot API instead, to take a 'rename' parameter. That > way, creating a slot and overriding its name can become an atomic > operation. > > That should make the race conditions go away, and the code is > much easier to understand as well. >
OK. I guess one of the thing that will bother us is how to handle the case pci_slot created by pci_create_slot() already has its hotplug callbacks in pci_hp_register(). Current code calls pci_destroy_slot() and return -EBUSY in this case. With the new API which takes 'rename' parameterIn addtion to that, we need to rename the slot as it used to be, in addition.
>> - [01/03] Sample patch for [PATCH v4 02/15] > > This is a good patch by itself. I think you should submit it to > Jesse. I did not need it after reworking to my new design. > >> - [02/03] Sample patch for [PATCH v4 03/15] >> NOTE:This doesn't target the comment about changing exported >> symbol name. > > I had to stare at this patch for a long time to understand it, > and finally saw that you were changing the rename logic to detect > if we were trying to rename an existing slot. > > Unfortunately, it had some problem with the refcounting, and in > this scenario: > > - pci_slot loaded > - fakephp dup_slots=1 loaded > - pci_slot unloaded > > The slots claimed by pci_slot (but _not_ by fakephp) were never > released. > > By the time I got this far, I was already thinking about a > redesign, so I did not try and debug further... > >> - [03/03] Sample patch for [PATCH v4 14/15] >> This is needed because above two patches make your [PATCH v4 >> 14/15] can not be applied. > > Not needed, since I re-designed the approach. > >> Note: I made those patches as replacement of your corresponding >> ones. So those patches are NOT for applying on top your original >> patches. > > Again, thank you very much for all the review and hard work, and > sorry for causing so much churn. :-/ > > I'll be sending out the new patch series shortly. >
No problem. I'm looking forward to looking at new patches.
Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige
| |