[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <837be7ee-13c7-8e8a-1a6b-87fd5e42b166@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:26:30 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/7] PCI: make reset poll time adjustable
On 11/28/2017 9:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Introduce pci=resetpolltime= argument to override 60 seconds poll time in
>> units of milliseconds.
> I resist adding kernel parameters because they really complicate the
> user experience. Obviously you added this for a reason, but I don't
> know what that is. If we really need it, is there any way we could
> automatically figure out in the kernel when we need different poll
> times?
>
No, we can drop this patch if we want to . This was mostly a
scalability concern.
I worried adding 60 seconds would be too much for some use case. We can
hold onto this change until that use case happens if you want.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists