On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 05:53:13PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Greg. > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 01:40:35PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > Right, all (well almost all) I wanted is for individual drivers to declare > > > their probe() functions asynchronous and driver core scheduling async > > > attach > > > and properly handle failures from it. > > > > Yes, that's what I want as well. > > > > Luis, care to redo the patches in this way? It should be a lot simpler > > (no messing around with init levels and linker fun...) > > I don't think binding that switch to the driver is gonna work. This > is mainly about the behavior expected by the entity which initiated > module loading not about specific drivers.
Why would you say that? In my particular userspace we do not have modules. > I'm fairly certain that > there are userland scripts which depend on synchronous device probing > on module loading, especially for storage devices, so we can't simply > mark, say, libata as needing async probing and do it always > asynchronously. Right. But for many devices (input ones for example, USB as well, etc) that are essentially hot-pluggable userspace has been long ready to handle async order. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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/
