Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove deviceoperation

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/