linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 17:01:18 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	tiwai@...e.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com, teg@...m.no,
	rmilasan@...e.com, werner@...e.com, oleg@...hat.com, hare@...e.com,
	bpoirier@...e.de, santosh@...lsio.com, pmladek@...e.cz,
	dbueso@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for
 built-in and modules

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:36:27PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Do we intend to keep this param permanently?  Isn't this more of a
> > temp tool to be used during development?  If so, maybe we should make
> > that clear with __DEVEL__ too?
> 
> As its designed right now no, its not a temp tool, its there to
> require compatibility with old userspace. For modules we can require
> the module parameter but for built-in we need something else and this
> is what came to mind. It is also what would allow the prefer_async_probe
> flag too as otherwise we won't know if userspace is prepared.

I don't get it.  For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear
synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls.
Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too?  insmod'ing is
userland visible but there's no reason this has to be for the built-in
drivers.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/