Re: Why is the deferred initcall patch not mainline?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Grant Likely wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Bird, Tim <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The answer is pretty easy, I think.  I tried to mainline it once but failed, and didn't really try again. If it is being found useful,  we should try to mainline it again,  this time with more persistence.  The reason it got rejected before IIRC was that you can accomplish a similar thing with modules, with no changes to the kernel. But that doesn't cover the case where the loadable modules feature of the kernel is turned off, which is common in very small systems.
> It is a rather clumsy approach though since it requires changes to
> modules and it makes the configuration static per build. Could it
> instead be done by the kernel accepting a list of initcalls that
> should be deferred? It would depend I suppose on the cost of finding
> the initcalls to defer at boot time.
> I missed the session unfortunately, are there some measurements
> available that I could look at? Which subsystems are typically the
> problem?

I, too, would like to know more about the problem.  Any pointers?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Linux MMC Devel]     [U-Boot V2]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux