[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ppylf429.fsf@octavius.laptop.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:57:34 -0400
From: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Sergey Yanovich <ynvich@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wait while adding MMC host to ensure root mounts
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 27 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> I noticed you merged this. I thought the idea was to use the rootwait
> or rootdelay?
That's necessary before the patch, but it would be better if we didn't
have to pass rootwait, all else being equal.
> Moreover, this patch will have bad impact on booting the kernel, since
> every host device that has scheduled a detect work from it's probe
> function will also wait for it to finish. Even if it is the boot
> device of not. If this is needed, I would prefer that a host cap is
> used.
I see, you're worried about a performance regression where every boot
takes longer than it used to while MMC quiesces. That's fair. Do you
think you could tell me how much delay this adds to a boot for you, so
that we can consider whether the usability improvement is worth it?
If the delay's significant, I agree with you and will revert this patch.
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
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