[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070511092220.7d449001@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:22:20 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>, david@...g.hm,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Thu, 10 May 2007 16:55:54 +0200,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Phillip Susi wrote:
> > Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> The SCSI stack already has infrastructure for multi-threaded discovery
> >> and probing.
> >
> > So? It would still benefit from using a generic framework that other
> > buses can use as well.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. Many details of the If and How of asynchronous,
> parallelized probing rest with the low-level drivers.
A mix of bus/driver parallelism would probably be the most flexible
approach.
> [BTW, which ever team attempts to design this generic framework please
> brings in detailed knowledge of a variety of bus architectures. I for
> one would like to contribute with what I know about IEEE 1394, but
> before that I still have to experiment on my own before I have a good
> understanding of how to parallelize IEEE 1394 scanning and probing, and
> the IEEE 1394 core is being radically reworked at the moment anyway.]
I guess I'm too tainted by s390 :/ (which in comparison provides a
quite unified way at probing), but I'd be happy to contibute my
experiences as well.
-
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