On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Yinghai Lu [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Bjorn Helgaas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I think it would be better to remove the bus resource from the tree,
change its "end," then re-insert it.

how about parent buses that have extended top?

I don't understand your question.  I assume you mean there's a case
where remove/update/reinsert doesn't work, but I don't see why that
would be a problem.  Can you show an example?

I mean parent busn_res already had several level's children busn_res.
and every level may have some siblings.
before remove will need to record those resources, to later to put them back.

that just increase not necessary complexity. because we already know
those resource could be extended safely.

You're doing surgery on the middle of a relatively complicated data
structure.  Now readers of the code have to trust that not only does
kernel/resource.c work correctly, but they also have to examine this
PCI code to make sure that these alterations are safe.  I know this is
all crystal-clear in your mind, and no doubt it is correct right now,
but I don't think it is a reader-friendly approach.

But I don't expect to convince you, so I'll stop trying :)

Bjorn