lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to mod_devicetable.h
    Date


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:40 PM
    > To: KY Srinivasan
    > Cc: devel@linuxdriverproject.org; Haiyang Zhang; gregkh@suse.de; linux-
    > kernel@vger.kernel.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org
    > Subject: Re: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to
    > mod_devicetable.h
    >
    > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:27:56AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
    > > Since I don't have any (current) use for the driver_data pointer, I have gone
    > ahead
    > > and cleaned up the first 74 patches without adding the driver_data.
    > > With the mushing of the patches you had proposed this is about
    > > a 60 patch series and addresses all the other comments you had in the first 74
    > patches.
    > > I hope I have gotten the "right" granularity now. If it is ok with you, I could
    > send these
    > > out for your consideration.
    >
    > Please do.
    >
    > But if you do, do you mind if I add the driver_data pointer, so you can
    > blame me later if no one uses it? :)

    Not at all! I will go ahead and send you these patches shortly.

    >
    > > The only unresolved issue in the remaining patches (75 - 117) is the reference
    > counting
    > > issue we have been debating. As I noted in my earlier emails on this topic, the
    > reference
    > > counting has been there for a long time and I am reluctant get rid of that code
    > without
    > > additional testing/analysis. So I want to propose the following options:
    > >
    > > 1) Keep the existing code and I will skip the patches that cleaned up the
    > reference counting
    > >
    > > 2) Take the cleanup that I have implemented
    > >
    > > In either case, I would further test and analyze this code to see if (a) the race
    > condition that is being
    > > addressed is valid and (b) if there is a different mechanism that could be used
    > to deal with it. Given
    > > the gaping holes in the current implementation, my personal preference would
    > be to go with the
    > > second option. Let me know what you want me to do here.
    >
    > Ok, that sounds acceptable, but don't add the lock to the hv_driver, or
    > is that needed right now?

    Actually, last night I spent some considerable time understanding
    how this could be addressed differently and in a potentially simpler
    way. I will go ahead and implement this scheme. Hopefully, I will be able
    to send you these patches soon as well.

    Regards,

    K. Y




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-08-25 16:17    [W:4.045 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site