From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
> In fact, there is nothing wrong with having *both* a synchronous part, and
> an async part:
>
> .probe = mydriver_setup,
> .probe_async = mydriver_spin_up_and_probe_devices,
...
> Hmm? Would something like this work? I dunno, but it seems a hell of a lot
> safer and more capable than the aborted PCI multithreaded probing that was
> an "all or nothing" approach.
I definitely agree that we need a transitonary approach to this.
Although I kind of preferred the idea you mentioned where the
device could launch the asynchronous probe and just return from
the normal ->probe() immediately.
This might get tricky if the callers do some kind of reference
counting or other resource management based upon the ->probe()
return value since it wouldn't know what happened to the
launched asynchronous probe when it returns from ->probe().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
