Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] drivers/base: Add hotplug framework code | From | Toshi Kani <> | Date | Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:59:16 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 10:24 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:30:51AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 04:24 +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:02:45PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 15:54 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:17:14PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > > Added hotplug.c, which is the hotplug framework code. > > > > > > > > > > Again, better naming please. > > > > > > > > Yes, I will change it to be more specific, something like > > > > "sys_hotplug.c". > > > > > > Ugh, what's wrong with just a simple "system_bus.c" or something like > > > that, and then put all of the needed system bus logic in there and tie > > > the cpus and other sysdev code into that? > > > > The issue is that the framework does not provide the system bus > > structure. This is because the system bus structure is not used for CPU > > and memory initialization at boot (as I explained in my other email). > > I understand, please fix that and then you will not have these issues :) > > > The framework manages the calling sequence of hotplug operations, which > > is similar to the boot sequence managed by start_kernel(), > > kernel_init(), do_initcalls(), etc. In such sense, this file might not > > be a good fit for drivers/base, but I could not find a better place for > > it. > > Having "similar but slightly different" isn't a good way to do things, > and I think you are trying to solve that problem here, so converting > everything to use the driver model properly will solve these issues for > you, right? > > I _really_ don't want to see yet-another-way-to-do-things be created at > all, unless it really really really is special and different for some > reason. So far, I have yet to be convinced, especially given that your > reasoning for doing this seems to be "to do it correctly would be too > much work so I created another interface". That isn't going to fly, > sorry.
Let's continue to discuss on other thread since I copied s390 and ppc folks on that one.
Thanks, -Toshi
| |