linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support

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: <20140930072159.GC14081@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:21:59 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, tiwai@...e.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	teg@...m.no, rmilasan@...e.com, werner@...e.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	hare@...e.com, bpoirier@...e.de, santosh@...lsio.com,
	pmladek@...e.cz, dbueso@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe
	support

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Luis.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > +	/* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
> > > > +	if (!strcmp(bus->name, "pci") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "pci_express") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "hid") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "sdio") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "gameport") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "mmc") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "i2c") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "platform") ||
> > > > +	    !strcmp(bus->name, "usb"))
> > > > +		return true;
> > > 
> > > Ugh... things like this tend to become permanent.  Do we really need
> > > this?  And how are we gonna find out what's broken why w/o bug
> > > reports?
> > 
> > Yeah... well we have two options, one is have something like this to
> > at least make it generally useful or remove this and let folks who
> > care start fixing async for all modules. The downside to removing
> > this is it makes async probe pretty much useless on most systems
> > right now, it would mean systemd would have to probably consider
> > the list above if they wanted to start using this without expecting
> > systems to not work.
> 
> So, I'd much prefer blacklist approach if something like this is a
> necessity.  That way, we'd at least know what doesn't work.

For buses? Or do you mean you'd want to wait until we have a decent
list of drivers with the sync probe flag set? If the later it may take
a while to get that list for this to be somewhat useful.

  Luis
--
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/