Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems >> >> like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have >> >> not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from >> >> compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. >> > >> > I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of >> > ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c >> > you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does >> > this help even compiling? >> >> You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport >> the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even >> go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can >> safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not >> needed). > > Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't > really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my > confusion... :) Yea its fine to drop for now. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems > >> like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have > >> not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from > >> compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. > > > > I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of > > ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c > > you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does > > this help even compiling? > > You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport > the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even > go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can > safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not > needed). Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my confusion... :) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:19 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of >> > the API? >> >> Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems >> like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have >> not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from >> compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. > > I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of > ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c > you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does > this help even compiling? You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not needed). Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:19 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of > > the API? > > Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems > like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have > not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from > compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does this help even compiling? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > I guess I'd have to review the async API, >> >> Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. > > Yeah ... :) > >> > What's the use of just this when you don't have things like >> > async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator >> > stuff wouldn't compile I think? >> >> You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered >> domains likely to have an issue on the useres of >> async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. > > I don't know. However it seems that in order to have an ASYNC_DOMAIN() > or ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE() you always need to *do* something with it, > so for that you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() and > async_synchronize_full_domain() or similar, at least, no? > > The point here seems to be making boot faster by starting a bunch of > async probing inside a domain, and then you wait for the entire domain, > so everything that's in that domain can be done in parallel. > > Say for example you have 20 SCSI drives. If you look at them serially > then you'd waste much time waiting for the drives. The point here > appears to be that you create a domain (using this macro), then add all > the drives to the domain and then wait for the domain to finish. > > However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of > the API? Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I guess I'd have to review the async API, > > Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. Yeah ... :) > > What's the use of just this when you don't have things like > > async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator > > stuff wouldn't compile I think? > > You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered > domains likely to have an issue on the useres of > async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. I don't know. However it seems that in order to have an ASYNC_DOMAIN() or ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE() you always need to *do* something with it, so for that you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain() or similar, at least, no? The point here seems to be making boot faster by starting a bunch of async probing inside a domain, and then you wait for the entire domain, so everything that's in that domain can be done in parallel. Say for example you have 20 SCSI drives. If you look at them serially then you'd waste much time waiting for the drives. The point here appears to be that you create a domain (using this macro), then add all the drives to the domain and then wait for the domain to finish. However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of the API? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Johannes Berg >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 04:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" >> >> >> >> For older kernels this is simply a matter of using >> >> LIST_HEAD. >> > >> > Hmm, how is that useful if it will not have any effect? >> >> The core of the handling is done in the internal asynch code and >> that's kept hidden from the users of this -- so far. > > I guess I'd have to review the async API, Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. > but now this wouldn't do > anything? Nope. > What's the use of just this when you don't have things like > async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator > stuff wouldn't compile I think? You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered domains likely to have an issue on the useres of async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. > I guess I'm a bit confused what kind of effect this has. Nothing, really. If we had a user of it in other ways we'd fail compiling anyway but right now its a simple direct replacement. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 04:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@do-not-panic.com For older kernels this is simply a matter of using LIST_HEAD. Hmm, how is that useful if it will not have any effect? The core of the handling is done in the internal asynch code and that's kept hidden from the users of this -- so far. I guess I'd have to review the async API, Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. but now this wouldn't do anything? Nope. What's the use of just this when you don't have things like async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator stuff wouldn't compile I think? You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered domains likely to have an issue on the useres of async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. I guess I'm a bit confused what kind of effect this has. Nothing, really. If we had a user of it in other ways we'd fail compiling anyway but right now its a simple direct replacement. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: I guess I'd have to review the async API, Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. Yeah ... :) What's the use of just this when you don't have things like async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator stuff wouldn't compile I think? You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered domains likely to have an issue on the useres of async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. I don't know. However it seems that in order to have an ASYNC_DOMAIN() or ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE() you always need to *do* something with it, so for that you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain() or similar, at least, no? The point here seems to be making boot faster by starting a bunch of async probing inside a domain, and then you wait for the entire domain, so everything that's in that domain can be done in parallel. Say for example you have 20 SCSI drives. If you look at them serially then you'd waste much time waiting for the drives. The point here appears to be that you create a domain (using this macro), then add all the drives to the domain and then wait for the domain to finish. However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of the API? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: I guess I'd have to review the async API, Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too. Yeah ... :) What's the use of just this when you don't have things like async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator stuff wouldn't compile I think? You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered domains likely to have an issue on the useres of async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan. I don't know. However it seems that in order to have an ASYNC_DOMAIN() or ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE() you always need to *do* something with it, so for that you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain() or similar, at least, no? The point here seems to be making boot faster by starting a bunch of async probing inside a domain, and then you wait for the entire domain, so everything that's in that domain can be done in parallel. Say for example you have 20 SCSI drives. If you look at them serially then you'd waste much time waiting for the drives. The point here appears to be that you create a domain (using this macro), then add all the drives to the domain and then wait for the domain to finish. However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of the API? Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:19 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of the API? Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does this help even compiling? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:19 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of the API? Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does this help even compiling? You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not needed). Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does this help even compiling? You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not needed). Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my confusion... :) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does this help even compiling? You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not needed). Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my confusion... :) Yea its fine to drop for now. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
