From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752013AbbJQTgJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:36:09 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:38273 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751062AbbJQTgH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:36:07 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:36:06 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] init: deps: order network interfaces by link order
Message-ID: <20151017193606.GA2315@kroah.com>
References: <1445102067-11519-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>
 <1445102067-11519-5-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>
 <CA+55aFyOf_Uu1z64331Tvep6auUtjAkOsRXdYh0=Nvs3RFh89Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5622956F.80408@ahsoftware.de>
 <CA+55aFxjhQzjSf7SBR8BRBJWvUEHfKbQMVhgyQkH-p9j4s-Lew@mail.gmail.com>
 <56229B0B.80100@ahsoftware.de>
 <CA+55aFz62v1oH=K-GKoNmeUzeOx2Ted1w12ahN46qVqmiyhyxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56229E1A.8010803@ahsoftware.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56229E1A.8010803@ahsoftware.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 09:14:34PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 17.10.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> >On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>That isn't a flag day thing. It's a config option everyone can turn on and
> >>off whenever he wants.
> >
> >That's a flag-day thing. We've done it (drm comes to mind - several times).
> >
> >I'm disappointed, because I _know_ I pointed you in the direction of
> >stable sorting about a month ago. I really had hoped you'd have taken
> >that into account.
> 
> It's impossible to take it into account because I don't want to miss the
> parallelize functionality. And without that, all the stuff doesn't offer
> enough benefits to be worse the effort but just adds some time necessary to
> do the sorting. It might solve the deferred probe problems, but without much
> benefit.

Again, parallelizing does not solve anything, and causes more problems
_and_ makes things take longer.  Try it, we have done it in the past and
proven this, it's pretty easy to test :)

thanks,

greg k-h