| 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: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:36:53 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Greg K-H <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11 (PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE) On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > What if two devices become hotplugged at the same time? Does this imply > > that the bus _always_ needs to do some serializing there? > > You want to test it? Be my guest. It was more a rhetorical question. If not all drivers can handle it, serialize at the bus level. But if all drivers can, there's no reason for the bus to do it. On a bus with a small number of drivers, I prefer to have the drivers in good shape. (This kind of implies that e. g. pci needs to serialize, but css/ccw doesn't, and doesn't have to.) > But the final nail in the coffin is that doing it at the bus level is > INFERIOR. As you yourself admitted, it's better to do some things > synchronously. How so? It is possible to do some stuff synchronously. But why shouldn't other things be done asynchronously? (And there is a place both for bus-level parallelism and driver-level parallelism. Just depends on your bus/driver/device.) - 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