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

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

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
--
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/