Re: [PATCH 080/493] fddi: remove use of __devexit_p

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:49:50PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> > >  I have unconfused myself now, so please replace the above with the 
> > > following question: what about configurations (e.g. buses) that not 
> > > support hotplug at all?  For example apart from PCI the defxx driver 
> > > concerned here supports the TURBOchannel bus that by design does not have 
> > > the concept of live option card removal (no such circuitry).  So should 
> > > now the precious memory be wasted on systems that will never ever handle 
> > > hotplug?
> > 
> > CONFIG_HOTPLUG is always enabled now, so that's not an option anymore.
> > And again, a user can "hot unbind" a driver from a device from
> > userspace, no matter if the bus physically supports it or not.
> 
>  Hmm, what purpose does this serve for devices that cannot be physically 
> removed?  If there is none, shouldn't that policy be set by individual 
> drivers or platform even?  Even if HOTPLUG as a whole is unconditional (I 
> suppose the amount of space core support itself takes is much less to what 
> driver code can).
> 
>  TURBOchannel, although valid, is an old exotic case that might not be 
> worth arguing for, except for purity maybe.  But there are surely many 
> contemporary systems out there that are known they are never going to 
> support hot device replacement.  Consider most of the embedded systems for 
> example, where devices may even physically be cast into a single SOC (with 
> no prospect of chipping off any pieces ever ;) ), that certainly could not 
> care less of device replacement, but they do care a lot about memory 
> consumption.

Even those don't care about less than 5k of memory, do they?

>  Was this implication considered, discussed and diregarded as not 
> important enough compared to benefits from hardcoding HOTPLUG support?  

Yes, I don't know of any modern system that does not enable
CONFIG_HOTPLUG, do you?

> I'm seriously asking for a pointer, not trying to cause any stir-up -- 
> regrettably I fail to follow most discussions these days, but I would like 
> to know what the background behind this decision was.  Thanks a lot!

See Russell's response in this thread for details if you are curious.

thanks,

greg k-h