On 2012/8/28 8:38, Huang Ying wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 23:05 +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: >> Is it ok to ignore such a case? After all, aer_inject is just a test tool:) >> It's not worth to change the core logic for such a corner case. >> --Gerry > > Why ignore? At least you can prevent aer_inject from unload if > something special happened. >
Hi Huang Ying, Thanks for your comments. It's my negligence. I will add some protection code when do #rmmod aer_inject(a race condition window about bus_ops), I will correct it in the new version patch. ---------- Thanks! Yijing >> On 08/27/2012 09:23 AM, Huang Ying wrote: >>> On Sat, 2012-08-25 at 17:59 +0800, Yijing Wang wrote: >>>> When we inject aer errors to the target pci device by aer_inject module, >>>> the pci_ops of pci >>>> bus which the target device is on will be assign to pci_ops_aer.So if the >>>> target pci device >>>> is a bridge, once we hotplug the pci bus(child bus) which the target >>>> device bridges to, child >>>> bus's pci_ops will be assigned to pci_ops_aer too.Now every access to the >>>> child bus's device >>>> will result to system panic, because it return NULL pci_ops in >>>> pci_read_aer. >>>> This patch fix this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
