linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/3] fastboot: sync the async execution before late

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080731215601.GC4817@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:56:01 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/3] fastboot: sync the async execution before
	late_initcall and move level 6s (sync) first

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>> There is nothing else to run between 1-2 and 3, so there is no 
>>> opportunity
>>> to initialise devices in the background and usblp_init blocks for a 
>>> while.
>> If it were a module then it would block in a separate thread and wouldn't 
>> hold up the main init process.
>
> Right, but I want to compile all of this into the kernel.

Why?  It sounds like a trivial solution for you is to actually use
modules.  Why go through a lot of extra work to solve something in a
different way that is already solved for you?

Who is imposing the "no modules allowed" rule on you, and why was it
made?

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/