Re: [Update 4][PATCH 2/7] ACPI / scan: Introduce common code forACPI-based device hotplug

[Vasilis Liaskovitis]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 06:16:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Sorry for the sluggish response, I've been travelling recently. ->
[...]
> > > > So, I'd suggest the following changes.
> > > >  - Remove the "uevents" attribute.  KOBJ_ONLINE/OFFLINE are not used for
> > > > ACPI device objects.
> > > >  - Make the !autoeject case as an exception for now, and emit
> > > > KOBJ_OFFLINE as a way to request off-lining to user.  This uevent is
> > > > tied with the !autoeject case.  We can then revisit if this use-case
> > > > needs to be supported going forward.  If so, we may want to consider a
> > > > different event type.
> > > 
> > > Well, what about avoiding to expose uevents and autoeject for now and
> > > exposing enabled only?  Drivers would still be able to set the other flags on
> > > init on init to enforce the backwards-compatible behavior.
> > 
> > Now that we don't define uevents and autoeject in v2 of this series, could you
> > explain how we get safe ejection from userspace e.g. for memory hot-remove? What
> > are the other flags drivers can use (on init?) to avoid autoeject and only issue
> > KOBJ_OFFLINE?
> > 
> > > 
> > > I agree that it would be sufficient to use one additional flag then, to start
> > > with, but its meaning would be something like "keep backwards compatibility
> > > with the old container driver", so perhaps "autoeject" is not a good name.
> > > 
> > > What about "user_eject" (that won't be exposed to user space) instead?  Where,
> > > if set, it would meand "do not autoeject and emit KOBJ_OFFLINE/ONLINE uevents
> > > like the old container driver did"?
> > 
> > I don't see user_eject in v2. Is it unnecessary for userspace ejection control
> > or planned for later? Also why shouldn't it be exposed to userpace?
> 
> -> At this point we are not sure if it is necessary to have an attribute for
> direct ejection control.  Since the plan is to have a separate offline/online
> attribute anyway (and a check preventing us from ejecting things that haven't
> been put offline), it is not clear how useful it is going to be to control
> ejection directly from user space.

ok.
Regarding the offline/online attribute and ejection prevention checking, do you
mean the offline/online framework from Toshi:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1420262
or something else? I assume this is the long-term plan.

Is there any other short-term solution planned? If i understand correctly, until
this framework is accepted, memory hot-remove is broken (=unsafe). 

thanks,

- Vasilis
--
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/