On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 14:31 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On 05/21/2011 12:51 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Currently the ioport implementation is based on a USHRT_MAX length > > array of ptrs to ioport_operations. > > > > Instead, use an interval rbtree to map the ioports to > > ioport_operations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> > > --- > ... > > -static struct ioport_operations *ioport_ops[USHRT_MAX]; > > - > > void ioport__register(u16 port, struct ioport_operations *ops, int count) > > { > > - int i; > > + struct ioport_entry *entry; > > > > - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) > > - ioport_ops[port + i] = ops; > > + entry = ioport_search(&ioport_tree, port); > > + if (entry) > > + rb_int_erase(&ioport_tree, &entry->node); > > + > > Hi Sasha, if I understand this correct we're simply drop old registartion, > right? I think > it should not be like that, if one port get used for several drivers/purposes > we need a > ref-counting, but at moment I think we simply should not allow to re-register > port without > previously unregister it. Or I miss something?
Currently we register some ports as dummy ports in the ioport initialization, and re-register them once they get someone who can use them (for example, serial device). Not allowing ports to re-register would mean we can't reassign ports to serial console when the serial console module gets loaded. -- Sasha. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
