[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140922194906.GB9868@amd>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:49:06 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wu Zhangjin <falcon@...zu.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, hare@...e.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>,
Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
Cas ey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM
On Thu 2014-09-11 13:23:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:59:25PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 16:01 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:46:23 PM James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The thing is that we have to have dynamic mechanism to listen for
> > > > > device attachments no matter what and such mechanism has been in place
> > > > > for a long time at this point. The synchronous wait simply doesn't
> > > > > serve any purpose anymore and kinda gets in the way in that it makes
> > > > > it a possibly extremely slow process to tell whether loading of a
> > > > > module succeeded or not because the wait for the initial round of
> > > > > probe is piggybacked.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so we just fire and forget in userland ... why bother inventing an
> > > > elaborate new infrastructure in the kernel to do exactly what
> > > >
> > > > modprobe <mod> &
> > > >
> > > > would do?
> > >
> > > Just so we do not forget: we also want the no-modules case to also be able
> > > to probe asynchronously so that a slow device does not stall kernel booting.
> >
> > Yes, but we mostly do this anyway. SCSI for instance does asynchronous
> > scanning of attached devices (once the cards are probed)
>
> What would it do it card was a bit slow to probe?
>
> > but has a sync
> > point for ordering.
>
> Quite often we do not really care about ordering of devices. I mean,
> does it matter if your mouse is discovered before your keyboard or
> after?
Actually yes, I suspect it does.
I do evtest /dev/input/eventX by hand, occassionaly. It would be
annoying if they moved between reboots.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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