From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752456AbbEUEeM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 00:34:12 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:44702 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751140AbbEUEeK (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 00:34:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:34:09 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: "Luis R . Rodriguez" , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Rusty Russell , Olof Johansson , Tetsuo Handa Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] driver-core: allow enabling async probing for all modules and builtins Message-ID: <20150521043409.GE22632@kroah.com> References: <1427757610-27882-1-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <1427757610-27882-9-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20150520072734.GA13083@kroah.com> <20150520164459.GC23809@dtor-ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150520164459.GC23809@dtor-ws> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:44:59AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:27:34AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:20:10PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" > > > > > > Folks wishing to test enabling async probe for all built-in drivers > > > and/or for all modules can use > > > __DEBUG__kernel_force_builtin_async_probe or > > > __DEBUG__kernel_force_modules_async_probe kernel parameters. > > > > > > Activating either one will taint your kernel. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > > > [Dmitry: split off from another patch, split into 2 parameters, moved > > > over to core_param_unsafe()] > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov > > > > I've dropped this from my tree as I don't want to add these options, > > only to have to remove them later on when it's found out that these were > > a bad idea. > > OK. > > > > > I don't want to create a user api that we have to keep around for > > forever, and this would be such a thing (specifying how the kernel > > probing works.) > > Given that they are marked as __DEBUG and taint the kernel I do not > believe they shoudl be considered as an API/ABI. We can emphasise this > in docs and/or kernel messages. But they are options a user can set on the command line, and changing command lines is a pain. Yes, it's a bit odd name, but we don't have any other such naming scheme for command line options, so I don't know what to suggest here. > > For debugging, can't you just patch up your kernel and > > I can, but I do not have all hardware in my possession to validate the > behavior. > > > test this out? What's the real use of this? Who do you want to enable > > these? And why? What will you do with the information? > > The expectation was that distribution developers might use these > switches when evaluating whether they are ready to switch to > asynchronous probing. Distro developers will never do that, they have to support just too many different hardware types. And there's no real gain here for them. greg k-h