linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] PNP: don't check disabled PCI BARs for conflicts in quirk_system_pci

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:54:27 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Adam Belay <abelay@....edu>, Avuton Olrich <avuton@...il.com>,
	Karl Bellve <karl.bellve@...ssmed.edu>,
	Willem Riede <wriede@...de.org>,
	Matthew Hall <mhall@...omputing.net>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] PNP: don't check disabled PCI BARs for conflicts in
 quirk_system_pci_resources()

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > incidentally, i've been talking to Arjan about this recently in
> > context of the CONFIG_FASTBOOT feature. Because, as a side-effect,
> > in the long run, once the dependencies between initcalls fan out in
> > a more natural way, with explicit initcall ordering we'll also be
> > able to boot a bit faster and a bit more parallel.
> 
> Hell no.
> 
> We do not want any implicit parallelism in the initcalls. That way
> lies madness.
> 
> The probe functions that explicitly know that they are slow (like USB 
> detection and/or other individual drivers that have timeouts) should
> put themselves in the background. We should _not_ use the dependency
> chain to do so automatically, because for most cases drivers are
> totally independent, but we still want a _reliable_  and _repeatable_
> ordering.
> 
> Which means that I will not accept stuff that makes for a parallel
> bootup as a general initcall notion. I want things like network
> devices to show up in the same order for the same kernel, thank you
> very much - even if there is absolutely _zero_ ordering constraints
> between two independent network drivers.

just to avoid any confusion; the current -fastboot tree does not do
this parallel stuff. At all.
(so please don't judge it as doing that)


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/