[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090415050947.GB3462@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:09:47 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Linux USB kernel mailing list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: USB storage no-boot regression (bisected)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:35:59PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Like Arjan said, this is because we are initializing faster now, and
> > things are a bit more asynchronous. Use the root_delay boot option,
> > that's what I use for my USB-based systems, and have not had a problem
> > with that at all.
>
> Is that solution really scalable to every user with a regression severe
> enough it prevents them from booting?
>
> When did regressions become an acceptable tradeoff for speed?
So, we aren't allowed to go faster?
What happens when you buy a new box with more USB host controllers and a
faster processor? Same problem.
> This system boots just fine under kernel 2.6.27, 2.6.26, 2.6.25, and so
> on. Switch the kernel to 2.6.28, and it no longer boots. A regression
> cannot get more clear than that.
>
> Maybe this commit should have been accompanied by one that checks "root=" ?
How would that be accomplished?
The issue is that you were just lucky that your machine worked properly
previously. My boxes with the same type of setup didn't, so I quickly
realized what the root delay boot option was for. You need to just do
the same thing here, there's nothing else we can do.
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