Re: More general resource allocation scheme: a patch to look at

Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:03:09 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "[PATCH] Removing lock_kernel() from mlock(), mlockall(), munlock(),"
Maybe in reply to: David Hinds: "More general resource allocation scheme: a patch to look at"

David Hinds wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 1999 at 01:02:10AM +0200, Martin Mares wrote:
>
> > Philosophically speaking, loading and unloading a driver should leave
> > the system in the same state as before.
>
> I mostly agree with you, that this should be our desired end point.
> However, if loading a driver gives us information about persistent
> system state (i.e., the presence of hardware) that other drivers can
> take advantage of, I see no reason to go out of our way to discard
> that information.

How do you know this information is correct? What if a driver goes
gonzo and requests 20 regions before it finds one it likes. This kind
of info is best suited to some kind of log or history.

BTW, if there is a way to arbitrate sharing of regions that would be
great. An optional usage count maybe?

Jeff

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

Previous message: Alexander Viro: "[PATCH] Removing lock_kernel() from mlock(), mlockall(), munlock(),"
Maybe in reply to: David Hinds: "More general resource allocation scheme: a patch to look at"