[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070509094418.GA13245@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:44:18 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
bunk@...sta.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
(PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE)
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:58:10PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 07:07:53 -0700
>
> > Only if it ends up working properly. The commit you reference above
> > (which removed the PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option), is fine, pci
> > multi-threaded probing is still broken as it is a model that PCI drivers
> > are not yet ready to handle properly yet.
>
> FWIW I would like to see this working properly at some point.
>
> It seems to me that the issues are two-fold:
>
> 1) A proper dependency system is necessary
>
> 2) Proper mutual exclusion for shared system resources/registers/etc.
> that are poked at in an ad-hoc unlocked manner currently
>
> Is that basically what it boils down to?
Yes, that's about it.
Number 1 seemed to cause the most crashes, I don't think number 2 ever
caused any problems, but it might have, there were too many weird oopses
to be able to rule that out.
But in the end, I don't think that PCI really will benefit from this
speed wise, but I think the kernel overall will benefit if we can
document those dependencies somehow.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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