[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6seKN4Z-wBgTuZjr9=yP6y8f7YJ1Ah=ORq18-QUSXO1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:33:15 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 17:50, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if doing this all from a workqueue in the first place is going
>> to cause problems as probe isn't normally done this way at all.
>
> Yeah, I would expect unforeseen problems with the async thread too.
> It's probably all solvable, but it sounds troublesome to find out if
> things go wrong.
I think it is worth solving though since the feature is important. I
can certainly block out the deferral code with a Kconfig symbol so
that it only gets built when a driver selects CONFIG_PROBE_DEFERRAL.
That would keep the code out of x86 kernels while us embedded folks
iron out the bugs.
g.
--
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