Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753679Ab2KPXBt (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:01:49 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:37846 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753469Ab2KPXBr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:01:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:01:43 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Toshi Kani Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Vasilis Liaskovitis , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device operation Message-ID: <20121116230143.GA15338@kroah.com> References: <1352974970-6643-1-git-send-email-vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com> <1446291.TgLDtXqY7q@vostro.rjw.lan> <1353105943.12509.60.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1353105943.12509.60.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1597 Lines: 31 On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:45:43PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 22:43 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:22:47 AM Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote: > > > As discussed in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1581581/ > > > the driver core remove function needs to always succeed. This means we need > > > to know that the device can be successfully removed before acpi_bus_trim / > > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device are called. This can cause panics when OSPM-initiated > > > eject or driver unbind of memory devices fails e.g with: > > > > > > echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject > > > echo "PNP0C80:XX" > /sys/bus/acpi/drivers/acpi_memhotplug/unbind > > > > > > since the ACPI core goes ahead and ejects the device regardless of whether the > > > the memory is still in use or not. > > > > So the question is, does the ACPI core have to do that and if so, then why? > > The problem is that acpi_memory_devcie_remove() can fail. However, > device_release_driver() is a void function, so it cannot report its > error. Here are function flows for SCI, sysfs eject and unbind. Then don't ever let acpi_memory_device_remove() fail. If the user wants it gone, it needs to go away. Just like any other device in the system that can go away at any point in time, you can't "fail" that. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/