From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toshi Kani Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / hotplug: Fix PCI host bridge hot removal Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:13:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1384816407.1791.19.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> References: <2434673.zhjYZOTQ4A@vostro.rjw.lan> <3206422.AfXMUDqMXZ@vostro.rjw.lan> <1384798205.1791.14.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <11362197.FWMPl6Gp0A@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from g4t0014.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.17]:43437 "EHLO g4t0014.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751377Ab3KRXSH (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:18:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <11362197.FWMPl6Gp0A@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML , Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Yinghai Lu On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 22:39 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, November 18, 2013 11:10:05 AM Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:16 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > Since the PCI host bridge scan handler does not set hotplug.enabled, > > > the check of it in acpi_bus_device_eject() effectively prevents the > > > root bridge hot removal from working after commit a3b1b1ef78cd > > > (ACPI / hotplug: Merge device hot-removal routines). However, that > > > check is not necessary, because the other acpi_bus_device_eject() > > > users, acpi_hotplug_notify_cb and acpi_eject_store(), do the same > > > check by themselves before executing that function. > > > > > > For this reason, remove the scan handler check from > > > acpi_bus_device_eject() to make PCI hot bridge hot removal work > > > again. > > > > I am curious why the PCI host bridge scan handler does not set > > hotplug.enabled. Is this how it disables hotplug via sysfs eject but > > enables via ACPI notification? > > It just doesn't register for hotplug at all. I guess it could set that > bit alone, but then it would be quite confusing and the check is not > necessary anyway. I see. Given how the PCI host bridge scan handler is integrated today, the change looks reasonable to me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani Thanks, -Toshi