From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756536Ab3AOLQ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 06:16:57 -0500 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:41160 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752767Ab3AOLQ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 06:16:56 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown , Taku Izumi , Jiang Liu , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/22] ACPI: Separate acpi_bus_trim to support two steps. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:22:47 +0100 Message-ID: <13748380.3EEdbDmJs6@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.8.0-rc3+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1357944049-29620-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <3028581.u7PNshx4kV@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, January 14, 2013 10:31:35 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, January 11, 2013 02:40:34 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> Current all acpi_bus_trim callers have rmdevice to 1. > >> that means it will remove all acpi devices. > >> > >> When 0, is passed, it will keep the parent. > >> > >> For root bus hotremove support, we need to have pci device to be > >> removed before acpi devices. > >> > >> So try to keep all acpi devices, and only stop drivers with them. > >> > >> This change should be safe because all current callers all have 1 passed. > > > > I'm not sure how the chanelog is related to the patch itself. > > > > The patch modifies the behavior of acpi_bus_trim() to avoid removing all > > devices (not just the start point) for rmdevice==0, which doesn't really change > > the functionality, because all callers pass rmdevice=1 anyway. > > > > Yes, we can make this change, but why is it necessary? > > > > And why don't we remove the rmdevice argument from acpi_bus_trim() altogether? > > this patch is not needed after your changes with acpi_bus_trim. OK, cool. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.