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

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:22:47PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> > +				   struct bus_type *bus)
> > +{
> > +	struct module *mod;
> > +
> > +	if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> > +		return false;
> 
> This bit is one of the biggest issues I have with the patch set. Why async
> probing is limited to modules only?

Because Tejun wanted to address this separately, so its not that we will restrict
this but we should have non-module solution added as an evolution on top of this,
as a secondary step.

> I mentioned several times that we need
> async probing for built-in drivers and the way you are structuring the flags
> (async by default for modules, possibly opt-out of async for modules, forcibly
> sync for built-in) it is hard to extend the infrastructure for built-in case.

I confess I haven't tried enabling built-in as a secondary step but its just
due to lack of time right now but I don't think impossible and think actually
think it should be fairly trivial. Are there real blockers to do this that
you see as an evolutionary step?

> Also, as far as I can see, you are only considering the case where driver is
> being bound to already registered devices. If you have a module that creates a
> device for a driver that is already loaded and takes long time to probe you
> would still be probing synchronously even if driver/module requested async
> behavior.

Can you provide an example code path hit here? I'll certainly like to address
that as well.

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/