On 11/02/2012 12:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
Hi Tang,
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch
that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 04:39:50 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable
> >
> > There is a seemingly useless check in drivers/acpi/osl.c added
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable
>
> There is a seemingly useless check in drivers/acpi/osl.c added by
> commit bc73675 (ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep), which
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 03:15:31 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
> >> comment for it...
> >>
> >> that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
>> comment for it...
>>
>> that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key
>> from every INIT_WORK.
>
> I see.
>
> OK, I'll drop the patch
> > >> Hi Yinghai,
> > >>
> > >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to
> > >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have
> > >> had some comment to explain this, though.
> > >>
> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304
> > >
> > > The
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:16:22 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > >
> > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
> > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules.
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:28:25 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
> > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
> > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
> > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
> > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
> you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch
> that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 15:27 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> This patch introduces a new function container_device_remove() to do
> the container hot-remove job. It works like the following:
>
> 1. call acpi_bus_trim(device, 0) to stop the container device,
>which means to unbind ACPI drivers first
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 15:27 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
This patch introduces a new function container_device_remove() to do
the container hot-remove job. It works like the following:
1. call acpi_bus_trim(device, 0) to stop the container device,
which means to unbind ACPI drivers first
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch
that exports
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
you have the same problem here. FYI, I just
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:28:25 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
you have the same problem here. FYI,
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
Rafael pointed out in my CPU
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:16:22 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani
Hi Yinghai,
Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to
allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have
had some comment to explain this, though.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304
The code has evolved since then,
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
comment for it...
that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key
from every INIT_WORK.
I see.
OK, I'll drop the patch
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 03:15:31 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
comment for it...
that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable
There is a seemingly useless check in drivers/acpi/osl.c added by
commit bc73675 (ACPI: fixes a
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 04:39:50 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable
There is a seemingly useless check
On 11/02/2012 12:43 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
Hi Tang,
Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch
that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and
This patch introduces a new function container_device_remove() to do
the container hot-remove job. It works like the following:
1. call acpi_bus_trim(device, 0) to stop the container device,
which means to unbind ACPI drivers first before remove devices.
(This feature is introduced by Lu
This patch introduces a new function container_device_remove() to do
the container hot-remove job. It works like the following:
1. call acpi_bus_trim(device, 0) to stop the container device,
which means to unbind ACPI drivers first before remove devices.
(This feature is introduced by Lu
28 matches
Mail list logo
