Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sysfs: allow suicide

[Eric W. Biederman]

Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx> writes:

>> Sounds like it.    I'm not trying to shoot this down, rather
>> I'm trying to figure out how to solve this cleanly, as I am slowly
>> trying to sort out the pci hotplug and unplug issues.
>
> Please do keep me informed on any progress you make or thoughts
> you have here.
>
>> I'm not certain how general we can be. pci layer, device layer or kobject
>> layer, but I think it makes sense to have a dedicated work queue to use
>> when devices are removed.  As every hotplug driver currently has to
>> invent one.  The fake hotplug code is very normal in this respect.
>> 
>> If we can get the work queue creation and the calling of remove put
>> into the generic pci layer, we should be able to simply all of the
>> hotplug controller drivers.
>
> Hm, that is a good idea.
>
> Simplifying all the various hotplug drivers is on my TODO list,
> but it's a long and tricky process. I agree though, there is no
> reason why they should all be as complicated as they are.
>
>> I'm not seeing a patch from you where you are using a separate
>> workqueue.  Am I missing something?  
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/25/489
>
> But I suspect that is not the workqueue you are looking for. ;)

Not quite.

>> But if we can place that workqueue in say the pci layer I think
>> it would be just a little re factoring and not a lot more code.
>
> The PCI layer doesn't need a workqueue to remove devices, not on
> its own behalf.
>
> You are talking about providing something for the benefit of all
> the hotplug drivers, right?

Yes.  The common case is that we discover a card needs to be or
has been removed from an interrupt handler.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/