On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:44:05AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > <oops, sent too early...> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > Given that downstreams are already carrying as many hacks as they > > could think of to speed total boot up, I think this is effectively > > telling them to go away. > > No I'm not, I'm asking for real data, not hand-wavy-this-is-going-to > solve-the-random-issue-i'm-having type patch by putting random calls in > semi-random subsystems all over the kernel. +100000000000, fully agree. There's too much verbal diarrhoea going on in this thread and no facts. I've been waiting for real data too, and there's not one shred of it, or even a hint that it might appear. So, the conclusion I'm coming to is that there isn't any data to back up the claims made in this thread. If it was such a problem, then in the _eight_ days that this has been discussed so far, _someone_ would have sent some data showing the problem. I think the fact is, there is no data. Someone prove me wrong. Someone post the verifiable data showing that there is a problem to be solved here. Someone show what the specific failure cases are that are hampering vendors moving forwards. Someone show the long boot times by way of kernel message log. Someone show some evidence of the problems that have been alluded to. If no one can show some evidence, there isn't a problem here. :) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
