From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758940AbZBXRFj (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:05:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754717AbZBXRFU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:05:20 -0500 Received: from outbound-mail-123.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.23]:38230 "HELO outbound-mail-123.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758427AbZBXRFS (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:05:18 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User; b=V3Ifo4AdemSuOAqhCX/1P7XD1mPikD++30Ort1hPC6uNsvFZnX06Sc8PGxYzhbv3gIHLg2mwVO1hZsGIWYpeD/io7nGxNv8qMuLo5HQaibMZ7UBx6Fq1/aPZrRe1XGZO; From: Jesse Barnes To: "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [PATCH] pciehp: Handle interrupts that happen during initialization. Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:05:09 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.27-11-generic; KDE/4.2.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Kenji Kaneshige , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <499BA141.2090403@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902240905.09964.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, February 23, 2009 3:08:44 am Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kenji Kaneshige writes: > > Ok, I understood what is happening. Could you try the following patch? > > It is currently in Jesse's linux-next. > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=123364118418484&w=2 > > > > BTW, I don't think surprise removal is well tested. > > That patch should guarantee that we don't loop forever, and if we are > going to loop that looks like a reasonable way to handle it. > > When I start working on what is the most maintainable way to implement > merge my hotplug driver work I will come back and test this. > > At the moment it appears that it will at least suffer from detecting a > presence change event with a device showing up. Before pci structure > for the device is removed. I seem to recall some dead locks on the > pciehp work queue hotunplugging a hotplug driver as well. So where does that leave us with your original patch; do you think we need something in 2.6.29 for this issue? Or are you planning on reworking things for .30? Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center