[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319172228.GT25365@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:22:28 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] EDAC: amd64_edac: decide if driver can load
successfully early.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:57:41AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> In all fairness platform_driver_probe() does pretty much the same and
> forces us to mark thus drivers with PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS as well. And
> there are quite a few of them:
>
> dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/work$ grep -r "platform_driver_probe" drivers/ |
> wc -l
> 186
>
> What makes edac unusual is that PCI bus is hot-pluggable and thus PCI
> drivers are rarely one-shot.
As long as it's not buried in each driver and has some generic model,
it's okay. They're at least annotated and digging them out and
handling them as a class of drivers is okay but we really should stay
away from one-off hacks in individual drivers. Things like that add a
lot of overhead in the long term. I'm just kinda baffled that
Borislav's response to "that's hacky, let's not do that or do that in
a generic manner" is coming back with more hacks.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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