During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
acpiphp.
Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
callers.
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
@@ -646,6 +646,7 @@ static void handle_root_bridge_insertion
static void handle_root_bridge_removal(struct acpi_device *device)
{
+ acpi_status status;
struct acpi_eject_event *ej_event;
ej_event = kmalloc(sizeof(*ej_event), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -661,7 +662,9 @@ static void handle_root_bridge_removal(s
ej_event->device = device;
ej_event->event = ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST;
- acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(ej_event);
+ status = acpi_os_hotplug_execute(acpi_bus_hot_remove_device, ej_event);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+ kfree(ej_event);
}
static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -676,8 +679,9 @@ static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(s
handle = hp_work->handle;
type = hp_work->type;
- root = acpi_pci_find_root(handle);
+ acpi_scan_lock_acquire();
+ root = acpi_pci_find_root(handle);
acpi_get_name(handle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, &buffer);
switch (type) {
@@ -711,6 +715,7 @@ static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(s
break;
}
+ acpi_scan_lock_release();
kfree(hp_work); /* allocated in handle_hotplug_event_bridge */
kfree(buffer.pointer);
}
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:05:16 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
> we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
> acpiphp.
>
> Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
> as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
>
> That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
> callers.
>
> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Bjorn, this needs to go in before final 3.9.
Are you going to handle it, or should I take care of it?
Rafael
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> @@ -646,6 +646,7 @@ static void handle_root_bridge_insertion
>
> static void handle_root_bridge_removal(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> + acpi_status status;
> struct acpi_eject_event *ej_event;
>
> ej_event = kmalloc(sizeof(*ej_event), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -661,7 +662,9 @@ static void handle_root_bridge_removal(s
> ej_event->device = device;
> ej_event->event = ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST;
>
> - acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(ej_event);
> + status = acpi_os_hotplug_execute(acpi_bus_hot_remove_device, ej_event);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> + kfree(ej_event);
> }
>
> static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -676,8 +679,9 @@ static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(s
> handle = hp_work->handle;
> type = hp_work->type;
>
> - root = acpi_pci_find_root(handle);
> + acpi_scan_lock_acquire();
>
> + root = acpi_pci_find_root(handle);
> acpi_get_name(handle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, &buffer);
>
> switch (type) {
> @@ -711,6 +715,7 @@ static void _handle_hotplug_event_root(s
> break;
> }
>
> + acpi_scan_lock_release();
> kfree(hp_work); /* allocated in handle_hotplug_event_bridge */
> kfree(buffer.pointer);
> }
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:05:16 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
>> we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
>> acpiphp.
>>
>> Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
>> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
>> as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
>>
>> That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
>> callers.
>>
>> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>
> Bjorn, this needs to go in before final 3.9.
>
> Are you going to handle it, or should I take care of it?
It should be better via your pm+acpi tree, as that lock is added via your tree.
Thanks
Yinghai
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 08:12:30 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:05:16 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
> >> we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
> >> acpiphp.
> >>
> >> Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
> >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
> >> as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
> >>
> >> That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
> >> callers.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> >> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> >
> > Bjorn, this needs to go in before final 3.9.
> >
> > Are you going to handle it, or should I take care of it?
>
> It should be better via your pm+acpi tree, as that lock is added via your tree.
OK, I'll take it, then, if Bjorn doesn't object.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 08:12:30 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:05:16 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
>> >> we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
>> >> acpiphp.
>> >>
>> >> Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
>> >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
>> >> as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
>> >>
>> >> That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
>> >> callers.
>> >>
>> >> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
>> >> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Bjorn, this needs to go in before final 3.9.
>> >
>> > Are you going to handle it, or should I take care of it?
>>
>> It should be better via your pm+acpi tree, as that lock is added via your tree.
>
> OK, I'll take it, then, if Bjorn doesn't object.
Yep, that's fine with me.
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 04:48:49 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 08:12:30 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:05:16 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> >> During merging pci tree with pm/acpi tree, Linus noticed that
> >> >> we don't have same lock using patten about acpi pci root as
> >> >> acpiphp.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here apply same lock patten, and we need to change
> >> >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device executing via acpi_os_hotplug_execute()
> >> >> as it also hold the lock in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device.
> >> >>
> >> >> That will make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device calling the same as other
> >> >> callers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> >> >> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Bjorn, this needs to go in before final 3.9.
> >> >
> >> > Are you going to handle it, or should I take care of it?
> >>
> >> It should be better via your pm+acpi tree, as that lock is added via your tree.
> >
> > OK, I'll take it, then, if Bjorn doesn't object.
>
> Yep, that's fine with me.
Cool, thanks. :-)
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.