[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070509191435.695765ce@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:14:35 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
(PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE)
On Wed, 9 May 2007 09:50:09 -0700 (PDT),
david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> > Why is it dead? Since when is PCI the only bus in the system?
>
> correct, while this discussion started over the PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE it's
> focusing on the generic problem that would apply to any bus
s/multithreaded/async/ (more generic and better describing what we
want imo) That's why I said the multithreaded approach was dead (sorry
if that was confusing).
> I don't think anyone is saying that PCI is the problem here. We're trying
> to identify what needs to be done for any arbatrary bus, if a particular
> bus doesn't need to split it's initialization up becouse there are no
> delays (and therefor no gains for multithreading) then drivers for that
> bus don't bother to implement any async portion.
Exactly. A general idea/framework on how to do async probing would be
good.
-
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