On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > incidentally, i've been talking to Arjan about this recently in > > context of the CONFIG_FASTBOOT feature. Because, as a side-effect, > > in the long run, once the dependencies between initcalls fan out in > > a more natural way, with explicit initcall ordering we'll also be > > able to boot a bit faster and a bit more parallel. > > Hell no. > > We do not want any implicit parallelism in the initcalls. That way > lies madness. > > The probe functions that explicitly know that they are slow (like USB > detection and/or other individual drivers that have timeouts) should > put themselves in the background. We should _not_ use the dependency > chain to do so automatically, because for most cases drivers are > totally independent, but we still want a _reliable_ and _repeatable_ > ordering. > > Which means that I will not accept stuff that makes for a parallel > bootup as a general initcall notion. I want things like network > devices to show up in the same order for the same kernel, thank you > very much - even if there is absolutely _zero_ ordering constraints > between two independent network drivers. just to avoid any confusion; the current -fastboot tree does not do this parallel stuff. At all. (so please don't judge it as doing that) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
