[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061027223228.e1679147.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:32:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [patch] drivers: wait for threaded probes between initcall
levels
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:19:25 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> The simplest implementation of "A needs B to have run" is for A to simply
> call B, and B arranges to not allow itself to be run more than once.
>
> But that doesn't work in the case "A needs B to be run, but only if B is
> present". Resolving this one would require something like a fancy
> "synchronisation object" against which dependers and dependees can register
> interest, and a core engine which takes care of the case where a depender
> registers against something which no dependees have registered.
otoh, we could stick with the simple "A calls B" solution, and A also
provides an attribute-weak implementation of B to cover the "A needs B but
only if B is present" problems.
Had to say, really - one would need to study some specific problem cases.
-
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