Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver-core: add driver asynchronous probe support

Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-09-30T07:21:59Z

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Luis.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > + /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
> > > > + if (!strcmp(bus->name, "pci") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "pci_express") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "hid") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "sdio") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "gameport") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "mmc") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "i2c") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "platform") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "usb"))
> > > > + return true;
> > >
> > > Ugh... things like this tend to become permanent. Do we really need
> > > this? And how are we gonna find out what's broken why w/o bug
> > > reports?
> >
> > Yeah... well we have two options, one is have something like this to
> > at least make it generally useful or remove this and let folks who
> > care start fixing async for all modules. The downside to removing
> > this is it makes async probe pretty much useless on most systems
> > right now, it would mean systemd would have to probably consider
> > the list above if they wanted to start using this without expecting
> > systems to not work.
>
> So, I'd much prefer blacklist approach if something like this is a
> necessity. That way, we'd at least know what doesn't work.

For buses? Or do you mean you'd want to wait until we have a decent
list of drivers with the sync probe flag set? If the later it may take
a while to get that list for this to be somewhat useful.

Luis