Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] libata: use common pci remove in ahci

[Jeff Garzik]

Brett Russ wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> This looked prime to cut since ahci_remove_one() was a functionally
> identical to ata_pci_remove_one() except for the interrupt disable
> (have_msi) bits, which fit nicely into ahci_host_stop().  However,
>
> 1) Will it work?
>
> 2) Isn't it wrong for the IRQ disable at the chip to occur *after*
> free_irq() is called to disconnect the handler (independent of
> question 1...since this is the case currently)?  Granted, all of the
> ports have gone through scsi_remove_host() but theoretically there
> still is a possibility the chip could interrupt.
>
> If I'm wrong on both counts I'll blame it on need for sleep... :-)


Moving AHCI away from ata_pci_remove_one() was actually intentional. 
This gives the driver a bit more freedom:  legacy region handling and 
->host_stop() became unnecessary.  Also, I was concerned that 
ata_pci_remove_one() might grow into a one-size-fits-all unmaintainable 
behemoth.

Short term, if one were being obsessive, a potential cleanup could be to 
make common the two loops in ahci_remove_one()/ata_pci_remove_one().

Long term, libata driver API should become more like the 
register_foo()/unregister_foo() interfaces you see elsewhere in the 
kernel.  That direction has the potential to shake up the current code 
path through ata_pci_remove_one().

So... your patch, while technically correct, is going in the opposite 
direction to where I want to go :)

	Jeff


-
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/