Re: [PATCH v1] drivers/acpi/scan.c: Fixup "acquire device_hotplug_lock in acpi_scan_init()"

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 31.07.19 15:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 31-07-19 15:02:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 31.07.19 14:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 31-07-19 14:32:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's document why we take the lock here. If we're going to overhaul
>>>> memory hotplug locking, we'll have to touch many places - this comment
>>>> will help to clairfy why it was added here.
>>>
>>> And how exactly is "lock for consistency" comment going to help the poor
>>> soul touching that code? How do people know that it is safe to remove it?
>>> I am not going to repeat my arguments how/why I hate "locking for
>>> consistency" (or fun or whatever but a real synchronization reasons)
>>> but if you want to help then just explicitly state what should done to
>>> remove this lock.
>>>
>>
>> I know that you have a different opinion here. To remove the lock,
>> add_memory() locking has to be changed *completely* to the point where
>> we can drop the lock from the documentation of the function (*whoever
>> knows what we have to exactly change* - and I don't have time to do that
>> *right now*).
> 
> Not really. To remove a lock in this particular path it would be
> sufficient to add
> 	/*
> 	 * Although __add_memory used down the road is documented to
> 	 * require lock_device_hotplug, it is not necessary here because
> 	 * this is an early code when userspace or any other code path
> 	 * cannot trigger hotplug operations.
> 	 */

Okay, let me phrase it like this: Are you 100% (!) sure that we don't
need the lock here. I am not -  I only know what I documented back then
and what I found out - could be that we are forgetting something else
the lock protects.

As I already said, I am fine with adding such a comment instead. But I
am not convinced that the absence of the lock is 100% safe. (I am 99.99%
sure ;) ).

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb