On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:57:20AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:14:48 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:39:16 -0300 > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:29:49PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:31:45 -0300 > > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The ACPI hotplug callbacks get a HotplugHandler object as > > > > > > argument. This has two problems: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The functions require a TYPE_ACPI_DEVICE_IF object, but the > > > > > > function prototype doesn't indicate that. It's possible to > > > > > > pass an object that would make the function crash. > > > > > > 2) The function does not require the object to implement > > > > > > TYPE_HOTPLUG_HANDLER at all, but the function prototype > > > > > > imposes that for no reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Change the argument type to AcpiDeviceIf instead of > > > > > > HotplugHandler. > > > > > What is the motivation for this patch, > > > > > do you actually get crashes? > > > > > > > > I didn't get crashes, but the idea for the change came when > > > > Michael asked me how to get the HotplugHandler object. I was > > > > going to suggest current_machine (which is also a hotplug > > > > handler), when I noticed he actually needed an AcpiDeviceIf > > > > object. > > > > > > > > The main motivation, however, is to simply make the function > > > > prototypes make sense. Is there a single reason to make the ACPI > > > > functions get a HotplugHandler argument instead of AcpiDeviceIf? > > > I'd rather to keep current *_cb() functions as is, > > > as we might actually need access to hotplug handler there and in > > > that case keeping more generic hotplug handler would be better > > > and it also sort of documents better what is being passed in. > > > > > > Also we won't have to rewrite it back from AcpiDeviceIf to > > > HotplugHandler again if it's needed. > > > > Personally I think type-safety is important, changing APIs > > isn't such a big deal. So I'd rather take Eduardo's patch unless > > the patches that would need to change it back are just > > round the corner. what's the status there? > I don't have any patches for this part nor any plan to work on it. > Ok, let's go ahead with Eduardo's patches. We can always change it > back if need arises.
OK - it's for-3.1 anyway, Eduardo pls remember to repost after the release, if that's still the case I'll merge. -- MST
