From: "Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>
To: Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@cern.ch>
Cc: gregkh@suse.de, martyn.welch@ge.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RESEND v4] VME Framework Fixes
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:36:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110831203651.GA5339@flamenco.cs.columbia.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1314785146-19163-1-git-send-email-manohar.vanga@cern.ch>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:05:43 +0200, Manohar Vanga wrote:
> Hi Greg, Martyn,
>
> I have reordered the patches to separate the bridge refcounting patch
> for now so that we can make some progress on getting the other patches
> into the tree. I will rework the refcounting patch and send it later.
(snip to 3rd patch comment)
> * staging: vme: make match() driver specific to improve non-VME64x
> support
> Changes based on the moving of the bridge refcounting patch as well
> as changes based on comments from Emilio and Greg in the last resend.
I'm confused. AFAICT you should fix things here; as per Greg's post:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:54:03 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:40:12PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > AFAIK currently a vme bridge driver can be freely removed with rmmod
> > even if it has devices under it. The patch avoids this by increasing
> > the refcount of the bridge module every time a device is registered
> > under it.
> >
> > What's the appropriate thing to do when rmmod tries to remove a bridge
> > module?
>
> Let it happen and remove all of the devices under it.
>
> That's the way all other bus drivers in the kernel work, why change this
> type of behavior?
When a bridge is removed, just remove the devices under it. Refcounts
in this case are not necessary; in fact refcounts where used to avoid
a bridge being removed while it had devices under it, which it turns
out was a bad idea.
Emilio
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-31 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-31 10:05 Manohar Vanga
2011-08-31 10:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] staging: vme: change static device array to pointers Manohar Vanga
2011-08-31 10:05 ` [PATCH 2/3] staging: vme: add struct vme_dev for VME devices Manohar Vanga
2011-08-31 10:05 ` [PATCH 3/3] staging: vme: make match() driver specific to improve non-VME64x support Manohar Vanga
2011-08-31 21:20 ` Emilio G. Cota
2011-09-01 7:46 ` Manohar Vanga
2011-08-31 20:36 ` Emilio G. Cota [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110831203651.GA5339@flamenco.cs.columbia.edu \
--to=cota@braap.org \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manohar.vanga@cern.ch \
--cc=martyn.welch@ge.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®