lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [driver-core PATCH v9 1/9] driver core: Establish order of operations for device_add and device_del via bitflag
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:37:32AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 16:28 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Alexander Duyck
> > > <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add an additional bit flag to the device struct named "dead".
> > > >
> > > > This additional flag provides a guarantee that when a device_del is
> > > > executed on a given interface an async worker will not attempt to attach
> > > > the driver following the earlier device_del call. Previously this
> > > > guarantee was not present and could result in the device_del call
> > > > attempting to remove a driver from an interface only to have the async
> > > > worker attempt to probe the driver later when it finally completes the
> > > > asynchronous probe call.
> > > >
> > > > One additional change added was that I pulled the check for dev->driver
> > > > out of the __device_attach_driver call and instead placed it in the
> > > > __device_attach_async_helper call. This was motivated by the fact that the
> > > > only other caller of this, __device_attach, had already taken the
> > > > device_lock() and checked for dev->driver. Instead of testing for this
> > > > twice in this path it makes more sense to just consolidate the dev->dead
> > > > and dev->driver checks together into one set of checks.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > It's too late for 4.21-rc1 as my tree should be closed by now.
> >
> > So I'll hold on to these in my queue until 4.21-rc1 is out and then
> > queue them up and see what breaks in linux-next :)
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> I just wanted to check on on this patch set in terms of workflow. Since
> it looks like we now have 5.0-rc1 out I was wondering what the ETA for
> this patch set being pulled was, or if I need to resubmit the set.

I'm reviewing it now, no need to resend...

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-18 16:51    [W:0.038 / U:4.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site