[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070508225159.3442563f@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:51:59 +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 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT),
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Instead of changing existign probe functionality to be asynchronous, we
> could *add* a new and asynchronous part to it. For example, we could make
> the rule for PCI - or other bus - devices be:
>
> - the bus will *first* call the "probe()" function synchronously.
>
> - after that one has completed, we will call "probe_async()"
> asynchronously at some point (it ie might be scheduled immediately
> after the "probe()" call, but delayed by some arbitrary issues like
> just already having too many asynchronous probes on-going or similar)
Hm. This would mean that probe() would be the decision "I want to use
this device", while probe_async() would be "setup my device, may take
some time"? Could work.
> So an unmodified driver would basically work exactly like it does now, but
> if a driver is happy with being called asynchronously, it could just
> change it's
>
> .probe = mydriver_probe
>
> thing into a
>
> .probe_async = mydriver_probe
>
> and we can do that ona per-driver basis with that kind of really simple
> one-liner change.
But probe would return int, while probe_async would return void? Two
liner :)
>
> In fact, there is nothing wrong with having *both* a synchronous part, and
> an async part:
>
> .probe = mydriver_setup,
> .probe_async = mydriver_spin_up_and_probe_devices,
>
> and it would do basic setup (including, for example, the fast enumeration
> of whatever devices are connected) synchronously, but then do anything
> more in the async part - and the async part would still be guaranteed that
> the setup has been run by the time it is scheduled (but not really have
> any other guarantees).
Looks like an idea.
I'll sleep on it, just too tired to make sense.
-
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