On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 14:54 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > If there's no ->error method, at leat call ->remove so one device only > > > takes itself down. > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > This was my thought too last time we had this discussion. A completely > > asynchronous call is probably needed in addition to Hidetoshi's proposed > > API, > > since as you point out, the driver may not be running when an error occurs > > (e.g. in the case of a DMA error or more general bus problem). The async > > Hmm, before we go async way (nasty locking, no?) could driver simply > ask "did something bad happen while I was sleeping?" at begining of each > function? > > For DMA problems, driver probably has its own, timer-based, > "something is wrong" timer, anyway, no?
No, there is no nasty locking, when the callback happens, pretty much all IOs have stopped anyway due to errors, and we aren't on a critical code path. Polling for error might be possible, but async notification is the way to go because whatever does error management need to be able to separately: - notify all drivers on the affected bus segment - one the above is done, and based on system/driver capabilities (API to be defined) eventually re-enable IO access and do a new round of notifications - based on system/driver capabilities, eventually reset the slot and notify drivers to re-initialize themselves. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
