| 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: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:32:58 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc3-mm1 On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:24:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote: > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20-rc3/2.6.20-rc3-mm1/broken-out/driver-core-per-subsystem-multithreaded-probing.patch > > Hrm. I disagree with this change. I have a few cases where drivers > actually want to explicitely do that. I suppose they can always fire off > a thread themselves from probe() but I don't see the reason to move it > to the bus type... The idea behind this is to have a probing thread for each device that does the actual work (call probe for the matching drivers) so that multiple devices can be probed in parallel. The decision to do this can only be made at the bus level. Previously, the code made it possible to have a probing thread for each matching driver for the same device in parallel. I didn't see any benefit in that, but maybe I'm just dense... -- Cornelia Huck Linux for zSeries Developer Tel.: +49-7031-16-4837, Mail: cornelia.huck@...ibm.com - 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