RE: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to mod_devicetable.h

KY Srinivasan
2011-08-25T14:14:28Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:40 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: devel@linuxdriverproject.org; Haiyang Zhang; gregkh@suse.de; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to
> mod_devicetable.h
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:27:56AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > Since I don't have any (current) use for the driver_data pointer, I have gone
> ahead
> > and cleaned up the first 74 patches without adding the driver_data.
> > With the mushing of the patches you had proposed this is about
> > a 60 patch series and addresses all the other comments you had in the first 74
> patches.
> > I hope I have gotten the "right" granularity now. If it is ok with you, I could
> send these
> > out for your consideration.
>
> Please do.
>
> But if you do, do you mind if I add the driver_data pointer, so you can
> blame me later if no one uses it? :)

Not at all! I will go ahead and send you these patches shortly.

>
> > The only unresolved issue in the remaining patches (75 - 117) is the reference
> counting
> > issue we have been debating. As I noted in my earlier emails on this topic, the
> reference
> > counting has been there for a long time and I am reluctant get rid of that code
> without
> > additional testing/analysis. So I want to propose the following options:
> >
> > 1) Keep the existing code and I will skip the patches that cleaned up the
> reference counting
> >
> > 2) Take the cleanup that I have implemented
> >
> > In either case, I would further test and analyze this code to see if (a) the race
> condition that is being
> > addressed is valid and (b) if there is a different mechanism that could be used
> to deal with it. Given
> > the gaping holes in the current implementation, my personal preference would
> be to go with the
> > second option. Let me know what you want me to do here.
>
> Ok, that sounds acceptable, but don't add the lock to the hv_driver, or
> is that needed right now?

Actually, last night I spent some considerable time understanding
how this could be addressed differently and in a potentially simpler
way. I will go ahead and implement this scheme. Hopefully, I will be able
to send you these patches soon as well.

Regards,

K. Y