Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752124Ab3FXEeL (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:34:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:58055 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098Ab3FXEeJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:34:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5632059.07cB6QdEcB@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <2737587.I0nULev1kj@vostro.rjw.lan> <1528326.6SFofebmNT@vostro.rjw.lan> <5632059.07cB6QdEcB@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 21:34:09 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5RXf1HsxdKS6BMdi9f8mO2FJHXk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / dock / PCI: Synchronous handling of dock events for PCI devices From: Yinghai Lu To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Jiang Liu , ACPI Devel Maling List , Bjorn Helgaas , "Alexander E . Patrakov" , Jiang Liu , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yijing Wang , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1619 Lines: 37 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, June 23, 2013 04:04:52 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: ... >> > Ah, I overlooked the fact that each dock station is on its own dependent_list >> > and can also be on another dock station's dependent_list. I'm not sure if that >> > makes sense, but let's not break the backwards compatibility here. >> >> wonder if dock_release_hotplug with second dock_station and dd will >> have problem. >> >> as first one dock_station/dd, could have hp_context release already, >> then second one could all release(context) again.... >> >> so looks like dock_release_hotplug should go over dock_station/dd list >> to clear hp_context in other dock_station/... if they are the same? > > I'm not sure what you mean. They are different dependent_device objects > and each of them has its own context pointer, although they both will point to > the same thing. > > Both "init" and "release" will be called for each of them individually which > for for acpiphp (which is the only user of that ATM) actually means "get" and > "put", so it should be OK. yes, then hp_context can never be the same, just the acpi handle is the same. Acked-by: Yinghai Lu BTW, thank you very much for the whole acpi scan rework. Yinghai -- 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/