On 10/08/2015 02:20 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
>>>>    /**
>>>> + * device_defer_all_probes() - Enable/disable probing of devices
>>>> + * @enable:  Enable/disable probing of devices
>>>> + *
>>>> + * if @enable = true
>>>> + *        It will disable probing of devices and defer their probes.
>>>> + * otherwise
>>>> + *        It will restore normal behavior and trigger re-probing of 
>>>> deferred
>>>> + *        devices.
>>>> + */
>>>> +void device_defer_all_probes(bool enable)
>>>> +{
>>>> +  defer_all_probes = enable;
>>>> +  if (enable)
>>>> +          /* sync with probes to avoid any races. */
>>>> +          wait_for_device_probe();
>>
>> ^ pls, pay attention on above code line
>>
>>>> +  else
>>>> +          driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Some people might prefer to see two separate functions, an enable
>>> routine and a disable routine.  I don't much care.
>>
>> May be. Should I change it?
> 
> It would then be more in line with functions like
> pm_runtime_set_{active|suspended} or pm_runtime_[dont_]use_autosuspend.

ok

> 
>>>> @@ -277,9 +304,15 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(probe_waitqueue);
>>>>    
>>>>    static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>>>>    {
>>>> -  int ret = 0;
>>>> +  int ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>>            int local_trigger_count = atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count);
>>>>    
>>>> +  if (defer_all_probes) {

Will it be ok If I add below comment here?
                /*
                 * Value of defer_all_probes can be set only by
                 * device_defer_all_probes_enable() which, in turn, will call
                 * wait_for_device_probe() right after that to avoid any races.
                 */


>>>> +          dev_dbg(dev, "Driver %s force probe deferral\n", drv->name);
>>>> +          driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
>>>> +          return ret;
>>>> +  }
>>>
>>> In theory there's a race here.  If one CPU sets defer_all_probes, the
>>> new value might not be perceived by another CPU until a little while
>>> later.  Is there an easy way to insure that this race won't cause any
>>> problems?
>>
>> Yes. this question was raised by Rafael also [1].
> 
> I see.  Can you add a comment explaining all of this?



-- 
regards,
-grygorii
--
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/

Reply via email to