Hi,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:04 +0100, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I had in mind along with device_lock(). I think the
> lock is necessary to close the window.
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg46973.html
>
> But as I mentioned in other email, I prefer option 3 with
> suppress_bind_attrs. So, yes, please take a look to see how it works
> out.
I tested the suppress_bind_attrs and it works by simply setting it to true
before driver registration e.g.
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -783,7 +783,8 @@ int acpi_bus_register_driver(struct acpi_driver *driver)
driver->drv.name = driver->name;
driver->drv.bus = &acpi_bus_type;
driver->drv.owner = driver->owner;
-
+ if (!strcmp(driver->class, "memory"))
+ driver->drv.suppress_bind_attrs = true;
ret = driver_register(&driver->drv);
return ret;
}
No bind/unbind sysfs files are created when using this, as expected.
I assume we only want to suppress for acpi_memhotplug
(class=ACPI_MEMORY_DEVICE_CLASS i.e. "memory") devices.
Is there agreement on what acpi_bus_trim behaviour and rollback (if any) we
want to have for the current ACPI framework (partial trim or full trim on
failure)?
thanks,
- Vasilis
--
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/
