On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:41:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 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.
Yes, let this be a decision the individual PCI driver does, I don't want
to put this two-stage thing in the driver core, but any individual bus
can implement it if they really want to.
> 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().
As long as the ->probe() call returns that the driver has clamed the
device, and the ->remove() call can be handled properly while the driver
is off doing whatever it wants to in the initialization, the driver core
should work just fine, no changes needed.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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]
