From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3407281.JKJqFNJUkI@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1445986707-15395-1-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:56060 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752357AbbKIUz7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:55:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Vishal Verma , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux ACPI , Jeff Moyer , Elliott Robert , Toshi Kani On Monday, November 09, 2015 10:25:10 AM Dan Williams wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Saturday, November 07, 2015 10:57:17 AM Dan Williams wrote: > >>> Rafael, awaiting your ack... > >> > >> Well, this seems to be entirely NFIT-related. > >> > >> Is there anything in particular you want me to look at? > >> > > > > This might be more relevant for a follow-on patch, but I wonder if the > > core should be guaranteeing that the ->notify() callback occurs under > > device_lock(). In the case of NFIT it seems possible for the notify > > event to race ->add() or ->remove(), but maybe I missed some other > > guarantee? > > ...and no worries if you don't see anything worth commenting on, the > bulk of this is indeed NFIT specific. I actually don't see anything objectionable in it, although admittedly I've just had a cursorly look at it. Thanks, Rafael