On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And, again, I do not really know which version is better.
In Chicago right now -- feedback was it seems the that generally
splitting up probe from init might be good in the end, if we do this
we won't need a work around for drivers that wai
On 08/18, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> At Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:22:17 +0200,
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 08/18, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >
> > > #define module_long_probe_init(initfn)\
> > > static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
> > > {
At Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:22:17 +0200,
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/18, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > #define module_long_probe_init(initfn) \
> > static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
> > {
On 08/18, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> #define module_long_probe_init(initfn)\
> static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
> { \
> module_put_and_exit(initfn());
At Sun, 17 Aug 2014 20:21:38 +0200,
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/17, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > In the last iteration that I have stress tested for corner cases I just
> > get_task_struct() on the init and then put_task_struct() at the exit, is
> > that
> > fine too or are there reasons t
On 08/17, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In the last iteration that I have stress tested for corner cases I just
> get_task_struct() on the init and then put_task_struct() at the exit, is that
> fine too or are there reasons to prefer the module stuff?
I am fine either way.
I like the Takashi's ide
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:55:05PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Damn, sorry for noise ;)
>
> I was going to suggest to introduce module_put_and_exit() to simplify
> this and potentially other users, but it already exists. So this code
> can use it too without additional complications.
In the las
Damn, sorry for noise ;)
I was going to suggest to introduce module_put_and_exit() to simplify
this and potentially other users, but it already exists. So this code
can use it too without additional complications.
On 08/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 08/17, T
On 08/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/17, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > How about just increasing/decreasing the module count for blocking the
> > exit call? For example:
> >
> > #define module_long_probe_init(initfn) \
> > static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *ar
On 08/17, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> How about just increasing/decreasing the module count for blocking the
> exit call? For example:
>
> #define module_long_probe_init(initfn)\
> static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
> {
At Sat, 16 Aug 2014 04:50:07 +0200,
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:39:02PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/15, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:51:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 08/12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > >
> >
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:39:02PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/15, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:51:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 08/12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +/* To be used by modules which can take over 30 seconds at probe */
>
On 08/15, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:51:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
> > > +/* To be used by modules which can take over 30 seconds at probe */
> >
> > Probably the comment should explain that this hack should only be
> >
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:51:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > +/* To be used by modules which can take over 30 seconds at probe */
>
> Probably the comment should explain that this hack should only be
> used if the driver is buggy and is wating for "re
On 08/12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> +/* To be used by modules which can take over 30 seconds at probe */
Probably the comment should explain that this hack should only be
used if the driver is buggy and is wating for "real fix".
> +#define module_long_probe_init(initfn)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:59:06AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Tetsuo bisected and found that commit 786235ee \"kthread: make
> > kthread_create() killable\" modified kthread_create() to bail as
> > soon as SIGKILL is received.
>
> I just wrote commit 786235ee. It is
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Tetsuo bisected and found that commit 786235ee \"kthread: make
> kthread_create() killable\" modified kthread_create() to bail as
> soon as SIGKILL is received.
I just wrote commit 786235ee. It is not Tetsuo who bisected it.
> @@ -128,4 +129,38 @@ bool queue_kthread_wor
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
Tetsuo bisected and found that commit 786235ee "kthread: make
kthread_create() killable" modified kthread_create() to bail as
soon as SIGKILL is received. This is causing some issues with
some drivers and at times boot. Joseph then found that failures
occur as the system
18 matches
Mail list logo