[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070508.144154.31643026.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, bunk@...sta.de, greg@...ah.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
(PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
> 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,
...
> Hmm? Would something like this work? I dunno, but it seems a hell of a lot
> safer and more capable than the aborted PCI multithreaded probing that was
> an "all or nothing" approach.
I definitely agree that we need a transitonary approach to this.
Although I kind of preferred the idea you mentioned where the
device could launch the asynchronous probe and just return from
the normal ->probe() immediately.
This might get tricky if the callers do some kind of reference
counting or other resource management based upon the ->probe()
return value since it wouldn't know what happened to the
launched asynchronous probe when it returns from ->probe().
-
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