Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on vacation.
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:07:30 -0400
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> > Allow host controllers to store private data per device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/libata.h | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > Index: libata-dev/include/linux/libata.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- libata-dev.orig/include/linux/libata.h 2007-09-24 16:13:33.000000000
> > -0700
> > +++ libata-dev/include/linux/libata.h 2007-09-24 16:15:24.000000000
> > -0700
> > @@ -474,6 +474,9 @@ struct ata_device {
> > /* error history */
> > struct ata_ering ering;
> > int spdn_cnt;
> > +
> > + /* controller driver per device private data */
> > + void *private_data;
>
> I don't have any objections to this per se... a lot of other subsystems
> do this too, and I can certainly see a potential need.
>
> But what about object lifetimes? If a controller is hot-unplugged, does
> anyone need notification to destroy dynamic objects, or does controller
> cleanup take care of that? If a device is unplugged, where should a
> controller driver do its ->private_data cleanup?
>
> This is /not/ a NAK, just a request to make clear the lifetime rules and
> procedures...
>
> Jeff
>
I'll do this - and meanwhile go ahead and ignore this patch. I've decided
to submit it as part of a series where I actually use the private data,
so we can review it in context.
Thanks,
Kristen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
