From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266793AbUGVCpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:45:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266796AbUGVCpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:45:21 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:52392 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266793AbUGVCpQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:45:16 -0400 Subject: Re: pci_bus_lock question From: John Rose To: Greg KH Cc: Mike Wortman , lkml In-Reply-To: <1090447841.544.7.camel@sinatra.austin.ibm.com> References: <1090447841.544.7.camel@sinatra.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1090448467.544.10.camel@sinatra.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:21:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org But then, most of these violations are in __init functions. I think I just answered my own question :) Thanks- John On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 17:10, John Rose wrote: > Is the intended purpose of pci_bus_lock to synchronize access to _just_ > the global list of pci devices, or also to the pci_root_buses list? > > If it is intended to protect the latter, I see many unfortunate places > where it's not being used :) > > Thanks- > John