From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752616AbcGXVuR (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:50:17 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:46667 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752206AbcGXVuN (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:50:13 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Guenter Roeck , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Joel Stanley , Jeremy Kerr , Greg KH References: <1469307112.8568.224.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20160724051810.GA7663@roeck-us.net> <1469365988.8568.255.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:36:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1469365988.8568.255.camel@kernel.crashing.org> (Benjamin Herrenschmidt's message of "Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:13:08 +1000") Message-ID: <87d1m2hg5i.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1bRRHX-0003Hl-S7;;;mid=<87d1m2hg5i.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.204.119;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+RKa4rmXh8OrcPz8iu95XDFS+JgvQDLGk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.204.119 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.1493] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Benjamin Herrenschmidt X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 421 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 4.0 (1.0%), b_tie_ro: 2.9 (0.7%), parse: 1.13 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 24 (5.8%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.20 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 10 (2.5%), tests_pri_-950: 1.96 (0.5%), tests_pri_-900: 1.59 (0.4%), tests_pri_-400: 26 (6.1%), check_bayes: 24 (5.7%), b_tokenize: 8 (1.9%), b_tok_get_all: 7 (1.6%), b_comp_prob: 3.2 (0.7%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.9 (0.7%), b_finish: 0.91 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 340 (80.8%), check_dkim_signature: 0.79 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 4.8 (1.1%), tests_pri_500: 6 (1.5%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: kexec: device shutdown vs. remove X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes: > On Sat, 2016-07-23 at 22:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> I suspect that using (or depending on) the remove function may not be feasible >> anymore after the recent effort by Paul Gortmaker to make drivers explicitly >> non-modular if they are only configurable as boolean. In many cases, this >> involved dropping remove functions. > > A lot of drivers we care about are modular. But maybe the right > approach is to do something like remove() if it exist and shutdown() if > it doesn't ? Or a new callback for kexec ? quiesce() ? Perhaps remove if shutdown does not exist. What this really takes is someone to care enough to sort through this mess. Eric