From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tiwai@suse.de, tj@kernel.org,
arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no, rmilasan@suse.com,
werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com, hare@suse.com,
bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com, pmladek@suse.cz,
dbueso@suse.com, mcgrof@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:22:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140928192247.GA28033@core.coreip.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411768637-6809-6-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> + struct bus_type *bus)
> +{
> + struct module *mod;
> +
> + if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> + return false;
This bit is one of the biggest issues I have with the patch set. Why async
probing is limited to modules only? I mentioned several times that we need
async probing for built-in drivers and the way you are structuring the flags
(async by default for modules, possibly opt-out of async for modules, forcibly
sync for built-in) it is hard to extend the infrastructure for built-in case.
Also, as far as I can see, you are only considering the case where driver is
being bound to already registered devices. If you have a module that creates a
device for a driver that is already loaded and takes long time to probe you
would still be probing synchronously even if driver/module requested async
behavior.
So for me it is NAK in the current form.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tiwai@suse.de, tj@kernel.org,
arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no, rmilasan@suse.com,
werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com, hare@suse.com,
bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com, pmladek@suse.cz,
dbueso@suse.com, mcgrof@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsio.com>,
MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:22:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140928192247.GA28033@core.coreip.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411768637-6809-6-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> + struct bus_type *bus)
> +{
> + struct module *mod;
> +
> + if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> + return false;
This bit is one of the biggest issues I have with the patch set. Why async
probing is limited to modules only? I mentioned several times that we need
async probing for built-in drivers and the way you are structuring the flags
(async by default for modules, possibly opt-out of async for modules, forcibly
sync for built-in) it is hard to extend the infrastructure for built-in case.
Also, as far as I can see, you are only considering the case where driver is
being bound to already registered devices. If you have a module that creates a
device for a driver that is already loaded and takes long time to probe you
would still be probing synchronously even if driver/module requested async
behavior.
So for me it is NAK in the current form.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tiwai@suse.de, tj@kernel.org,
arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no, rmilasan@suse.com,
werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com, hare@suse.com,
bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com, pmladek@suse.cz,
dbueso@suse.com, mcgrof@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsi
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:22:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140928192247.GA28033@core.coreip.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411768637-6809-6-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> + struct bus_type *bus)
> +{
> + struct module *mod;
> +
> + if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> + return false;
This bit is one of the biggest issues I have with the patch set. Why async
probing is limited to modules only? I mentioned several times that we need
async probing for built-in drivers and the way you are structuring the flags
(async by default for modules, possibly opt-out of async for modules, forcibly
sync for built-in) it is hard to extend the infrastructure for built-in case.
Also, as far as I can see, you are only considering the case where driver is
being bound to already registered devices. If you have a module that creates a
device for a driver that is already loaded and takes long time to probe you
would still be probing synchronously even if driver/module requested async
behavior.
So for me it is NAK in the current form.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-28 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-26 21:57 [PATCH v1 0/5] driver-core: async probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v1 1/5] module: add extra argument for parse_params() callback Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] driver-core: enable drivers to opt-out of async probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-28 14:33 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-29 18:55 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] amd64_edac: enforce synchronous probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-28 14:41 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-30 7:23 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-01 22:39 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 9:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-10-02 19:08 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] driver-core: generalize freeing driver private member Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-26 21:57 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-28 15:03 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-28 15:03 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-28 15:03 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-29 21:22 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 21:22 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 21:22 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 21:26 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-29 21:26 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-29 21:26 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-30 7:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 21:59 ` Greg KH
2014-09-29 21:59 ` Greg KH
2014-09-29 21:59 ` Greg KH
2014-09-29 22:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 22:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 22:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-29 22:24 ` Greg KH
2014-09-29 22:24 ` Greg KH
2014-09-29 22:24 ` Greg KH
2014-09-28 17:07 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-28 17:07 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-28 17:07 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-30 2:27 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 2:27 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 2:27 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:47 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:47 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:47 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 9:22 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-30 9:22 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-30 9:22 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-09-30 15:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 15:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 15:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 6:12 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-02 6:12 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-02 6:12 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-02 20:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 20:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 20:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 8:23 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-03 8:23 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-03 8:23 ` Tom Gundersen
2014-10-03 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-28 19:22 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2014-09-28 19:22 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-09-28 19:22 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-09-30 7:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30 7:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-02 23:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 20:11 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 20:11 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 20:11 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140928192247.GA28033@core.coreip.homeip.net \
--to=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bpoirier@suse.de \
--cc=dbueso@suse.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hariprasad@chelsi \
--cc=joseph.salisbury@canonical.com \
--cc=kay@vrfy.org \
--cc=leedom@chelsio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
--cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
--cc=nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=pierre-fersing@pierref.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
--cc=praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com \
--cc=rmilasan@suse.com \
--cc=santosh@chelsio.com \
--cc=sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com \
--cc=teg@jklm.no \
--cc=tim.gardner@canonical.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=werner@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.