| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:47:37 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>, Dilan Lee <dilee@...dia.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Manjunath GKondaiah <manjunath.gkondaiah@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism > How would a given driver know that something else is waiting for it? Or > would we add the explicit kick to each and every driver in the tree? I think there are very very few drivers that have this property and don't already implicitly cause a probe by creating a new bus or device. Those drivers that set something up for another device really should know what is going on because they are making a guarantee that they are ready for the other device to call into them or whatever is going on at some point, either explicitly in the kick or implicitly in returning from their probe method. I know which I think is clearer and easier for a 3rd party to see and not miss completely when updating code. Alan -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists